Instigator / Pro
0
1614
rating
349
debates
65.47%
won
Topic

Tahani and The Good Place (spoilers and full debate topic inside)

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Voting points
0
1

With 1 vote and 1 point ahead, the winner is ...

Safalcon7
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Philosophy
Time for argument
One week
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Winner selection
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Contender / Con
1
1569
rating
12
debates
66.67%
won
Description
~ 287 / 5,000

Full debate topic: Tahani Al-Jamil did not deserve to be assigned to the Bad Place based solely on the partially vain motives behind her extremely and consistently benevolent actions. She is in fact among the least malevolent human characters in the entire show, if not the single least.

Round 1
Pro
I'll pretty much rant for Round 1. If you prefer structure, wait until Round 2.

Tahani Al-Jamil was thoroughly good to the core. She was raised to be a competitive sociopath by parents who pitted her against her sister again and again. She is the older sibling and was in fact proven much more capable than her sister (both in hindsight from skills she proves throughout the series to be capable of gaining and skills like drawing and painting) than her sister. Her parents favoured her sister and brutally left Tahani nothing at all in their will, for absolutely no reason whatsoever than sheer sadism. She was tortured psychologically by her parents to rinse out the 'good' in her and replace it with ruthless strategic cunning, this is most blatant at a charity event where she's the entire reason it's happening and helped raise a lot, her parents tell her to shut up about it and bring her celebrity sister on stage to auction off a dinner date with herself and to rake in more. Despite all of this upbringing, the only negative trait that is displayed, morally speaking, is a clinginess and need to be heard and appreciated. 

Even though all four of the test subjects believed they are in the Good Place, Tahani was the only one of the four to instinctively and actively seek to be as good as she possibly could to people even while being told she was in the guaranteed 'good guy' afterlife with no further good karma/dharma to earn. She nurtures Michael in each iteration, caring deeply albeit in a frustrated manner for her silent monk 'soulmate' and doing everything in her power to make life pleasant for all around her. The sole issue found with her even by her spiteful sister, is that she happens to want too much appreciation at times but in my honest opinion she doesn't really ask for more than she deserves and it's completely forgivable that she is that needy/clingy considering her childhood and adolescent trauma, her sister became an emotional abuser to her due to what their parents turned her (Kamilah, not Tahani) into.

In actual fact, Tahani breaks down and cries as her deep empathy made her, in the after-heat of a spiteful fight between the two sisters when hurled back into the real world, because she realises (due to something someone says) that her parents and how they divided the sisters, are a huge inspiration for a lot of Kamilah's abstract art. She then hugs the sister and cries deeply into her shoulder despite the sister being furious and vindictive, leading to a groundbreaking peacebrokering between them.

To further push forward my case, not only is Tahani the only one of the four to continually do good and display innate empathy (way beyond the urge to selfishly point-gain) while in the pseudo good-place actual bad-place but she ends up the only known human at all to volunteer to remain a permanent architect ensuring that each soul be tested fairly and rehabilitated constructively. Meanwhile the rest, even Michael himself, take literal soul-death or banishment to Earth over remaining. It could even be argued that when that specific Janet (the superintelligent android who has a personality) literally ended up with all of her friends and 'family' gone grows sad as she misses them, she may ask the doorman to be transferred to the architects because Tahani is the only true friend she's got left. While Tahani was actually reluctant to actively bond with and take seriously the 'Janet' vs what Eleanor, Michael and Jason did, it actually is because Tahani doesn't seek to be 'served' all that much that the Janet and her filled similar roles within the team in terms of social hierarchy, they were both non-alpha females unlike Eleanor and this helped them a lot with frictionless team synergy as Eleanor likes to lead. Tahani and Janet did care deeply for each other, even when being in an intense love triangle with Jason. The fact Tahani seriously would have sex with, fall in love with and give up half her money for Jason in different iterations, shows that she was not at all the snob she was made out to be. She did this before finding out the truth about the afterlife in each iteration where she did so. Even more interestingly, she is the only one of the four to never ever (Chidi and Jason both did once) realise that they are not in the Good Place. Even when she visits Mindy in the Medium Place (we don't see it, it's mentioned by Mindy), there is never shown to be an iteration where Tahani doesn't believe that she is in paradise because it is in her nature to make the best of what she's got, which is actually proof that her vanity and materialism are not at all geniune vices, they are unhealthy habits her parents forced onto her and we all are somewhat products of our upbringing.

When the Judge tests the four of them, while Eleanor is the only one who passes the test officially, Tahani not only solved exactly what she had to do in order to pass it but failed it intentionally, skipping several doors of people gossiping about her, to solely listen to what her parents thought of her and find out why they didn't approve of her. In fact, she stayed true to this even when she was in the real Good Place, waiting for her parents to come through their version of purgatory to end up in the Good Place and spend time with her and Kamilah as a happy family finally. She waited the equivalent of centuries, if not over 2000 years (the conversion between their time and ours isn't made clear) to meet her parents and Kamilah, refusing to be 'at peace' or 'move on' to her architect role until she'd done so.

Tahani is a soul tormented by a past none of us would want to experience. Her parents literally did not love her and trained her to feel worthless if she didn't attain material wealth. In spite of this, she is a kind and caring person with said vanity and materialism as small vices that pale in comparison to her genuine caring nature and factual generosity, proven by how much she dedicated herself to charities. In the real-life iteration, she becomes a buddhist monk (or tries to) but is interrupted by a camera crew doing a documentary (which is possibly engineered by Michael, it is revealed later on). She does use things to gain compliments and admiration but that is not at all a fair reason to deem her net-evil.
Con
Thanks Pro.

Con will draw a sketch of his position in the first round to pave a way of getting into the debate in full force from later rounds.

Premises

Debate Topic: Tahani Al-Jamil did not deserve to be assigned to the Bad Place based solely on the partially vain motives behind her extremely and consistently benevolent actions.
This is the premise that Pro is defending. As we know from the show, the 4 subjects were assigned to the bad place originally but as the show progressed into climax, they had proven to not have belonged to the bad place and so they were shifted back to the good place.  Therefore, Pro is arguing against the original assignment of a particular subject  which was based on the her earthly life.

Rebuttal

Tahani Al-Jamil was thoroughly good to the core.
By which moral standard does Pro assert that? Because Pro is arguing against the original bad place assignment, he must be articulating against that judgement system of that time. But towards the end of the season 2, as Judge Gen had remarked-

"You're supposed to do good things because they're good—not for moral dessert."

So, according to her, the judgement system was justified well enough as she pointed to Tahani Al Jamil for her work of charity under the false pretense of benevolence. Now, Pro might argue that the entire judgement system was flawed. But remember, Michael was not reporting of the flaw in the system for its ethical evaluation. He asked for a fair range of opportunities given to the people on earth firsthand, for letting them receive a hint of afterlife consequences and that's why he managed to alter the timeline for each of the subjects on earth giving them chances to rectify their mistakes and lead themselves to the good place eventually. So, according to the humans, Michael and the convinced judge Gen, the valid reason of their appeal to change the system was not any flaw within the ethical or moral standard of the system- but rather as quoted in the show- "complexities" of human life on earth. Also, Pro doesn't mention any other objective ground (religion or any 'ism') to claim that she was 'good to the core'- which is only rational since the show didn't resort to any such specific moral guidance for the judgement either. Therefore, Tahani's placement in the bad place is justified by the show's original standard and Pro has failed to stand his ground in this case with no proper particularization.

Tahani was the only one of the four to instinctively and actively seek to be as good as she possibly could to people even while being told she was in the guaranteed 'good guy' afterlife with no further good karma/dharma to earn.
Why does it matter? The four were assigned to the bad place based on their earthly deeds. Whatever they did on earth got back at them through the torture designed by Michael. Whatever they do afterlife doesn't count anymore. If Pro indicates that it means that she was 'instinctively' good, my previous point proves she wasn't by the standard she was brought in. Also, when Michael realized the human complexity issue, he had reported to Gen about the striking improvement in all the four humans- not only Tahani. This report of improvement from Michael further confirms that the humans were earning negative points on earth justifiably- otherwise he wouldn't call them improved to a significant extent. Besides, when Tahani was convinced that she belonged to the good place, that just proves she wasn't guilty about her negatives on earth and was simply enjoying the haven as anyone would- very unlike Jason who decided to observe silence as a mask of his guilt or confusion of his presence. If anybody should get that primary credit for actual improvement, it should be Eleanor after she realized her undeserving spot in the pseudo-good place as she actively decided to better herself from then on to belong. For actual benevolence, Chidi should be credited before Tahani as he attempted to help his soulmate out of the blunder by helping her grow as a human all over again.

In actual fact, Tahani breaks down and cries as her deep empathy made her, in the after-heat of a spiteful fight between the two sisters when hurled back into the real world, because she realises (due to something someone says) that her parents and how they divided the sisters, are a huge inspiration for a lot of Kamilah's abstract art. She then hugs the sister and cries deeply into her shoulder despite the sister being furious and vindictive, leading to a groundbreaking peacebrokering between them.

To further push forward my case, not only is Tahani the only one of the four to continually do good and display innate empathy (way beyond the urge to selfishly point-gain) while in the pseudo good-place actual bad-place but she ends up the only known human at all to volunteer to remain a permanent architect ensuring that each soul be tested fairly and rehabilitated constructively. Meanwhile the rest, even Michael himself, take literal soul-death or banishment to Earth over remaining. It could even be argued that when that specific Janet (the superintelligent android who has a personality) literally ended up with all of her friends and 'family' gone grows sad as she misses them, she may ask the doorman to be transferred to the architects because Tahani is the only true friend she's got left. While Tahani was actually reluctant to actively bond with and take seriously the 'Janet' vs what Eleanor, Michael and Jason did, it actually is because Tahani doesn't seek to be 'served' all that much that the Janet and her filled similar roles within the team in terms of social hierarchy, they were both non-alpha females unlike Eleanor and this helped them a lot with frictionless team synergy as Eleanor likes to lead. Tahani and Janet did care deeply for each other, even when being in an intense love triangle with Jason. The fact Tahani seriously would have sex with, fall in love with and give up half her money for Jason in different iterations, shows that she was not at all the snob she was made out to be. She did this before finding out the truth about the afterlife in each iteration where she did so. Even more interestingly, she is the only one of the four to never ever (Chidi and Jason both did once) realise that they are not in the Good Place. Even when she visits Mindy in the Medium Place (we don't see it, it's mentioned by Mindy), there is never shown to be an iteration where Tahani doesn't believe that she is in paradise because it is in her nature to make the best of what she's got, which is actually proof that her vanity and materialism are not at all geniune vices, they are unhealthy habits her parents forced onto her and we all are somewhat products of our upbringing.

When the Judge tests the four of them, while Eleanor is the only one who passes the test officially, Tahani not only solved exactly what she had to do in order to pass it but failed it intentionally, skipping several doors of people gossiping about her, to solely listen to what her parents thought of her and find out why they didn't approve of her. In fact, she stayed true to this even when she was in the real Good Place, waiting for her parents to come through their version of purgatory to end up in the Good Place and spend time with her and Kamilah as a happy family finally. She waited the equivalent of centuries, if not over 2000 years (the conversion between their time and ours isn't made clear) to meet her parents and Kamilah, refusing to be 'at peace' or 'move on' to her architect role until she'd done so.


Pro again discusses afterlife improvements in all these points that according to Con's rebuttals don't count for her ending up in the original bad place in the first place. At this point of the debate, unless Pro decides to move on with arguments from plain ethics, Con has already won the debate. Because, by the show's standard moral system, Tahani al Jamil is justified to receive the original bad place treatment and Pro can't ever defend her in this regard.

Argument

She was raised to be a competitive sociopath by parents who pitted her against her sister again and again. She is the older sibling and was in fact proven much more capable than her sister (both in hindsight from skills she proves throughout the series to be capable of gaining and skills like drawing and painting) than her sister. Her parents favoured her sister and brutally left Tahani nothing at all in their will, for absolutely no reason whatsoever than sheer sadism. She was tortured psychologically by her parents to rinse out the 'good' in her and replace it with ruthless strategic cunning, this is most blatant at a charity event where she's the entire reason it's happening and helped raise a lot, her parents tell her to shut up about it and bring her celebrity sister on stage to auction off a dinner date with herself and to rake in more. Despite all of this upbringing, the only negative trait that is displayed, morally speaking, is a clinginess and need to be heard and appreciated. 
Only part of the Pro's argument that makes sense in Tahani's defense- taking us back to a good old ethical debate. So, according to Pro, the childhood stress in Tahani's life led to her competitiveness with her own family even in terms of her business and charity plans. By Pro's assertion, her charity can be morally accepted even though she didn't mean for any benevolent cause to donate for. But Judge Gen already debunked her position by calling her out on this as mentioned in the previous rebuttals.

In reality, Tahani Al Jamil acted as a narcissistic, self-absorbed, mere celebrity in her earthly life spending all her resources in the name of charity just to outshine her famous sister and to tell off her parents. Her parents and the preferred sister may have been a huge influence for Tahani to act like the way she did, but they were in no way any bigger than her own self. She had the power, the ability to outperform her family as a benevolent and philanthropic but she rather chose to compete with them unnecessarily and to portray a fake profile in front of the world rather than confronting her issues. She persisted in continuing to impress her family even when she was not any close to the goal. And all this time, her method of  accomplishing that untouchable line was by fooling the media into believing how great she was and the people she was helping just to show that off. In any society, such a person is regarded a hypocrite and that's exactly what Tahani Al Jamil became. Especially with the indicated free will in place, she had the choice to be the person she aspired to become or to run a lifelong beef in the expense of selling off her honesty but unfortunately she chose the latter leading to the rightful bad place. Recall that, each person is accountable for his own position in afterlife. Tahani's parents and her sister may may have earned their own negative points for the mental torture they knowingly and unknowingly imposed upon her with all the underestimation and disrespect they showed. But that doesn't take away the negative points  Tahani earned as well by faking a noble deed just out of spite for other mortals. On that count, it only seems fair that she ends up in the bad place as well

Therefore, I rest my case, stating with logic and reality that Tahani Al Jamil actually deserved to be in the bad place and I refute Pro with authority who claimed otherwise. 

VOTE FOR CON! 
Round 2
Pro
What Con wants me to do is fall for his trap here. The trap would be me buying into the dynamic where everything is defaulted to her being of malicious motive (because the Judge said so), belonging in the bad place (because the scoring system said so) and needing to work my way up from those  defaults with all the burden of proof (BoP) on me.

That's not how this will work.

The Judge is not at all equal to an omniscient god.

Whether for comedy purposes or 'everyone is flawed' purposes, the show makes it clear that the Judge is not omniscient, instead she is merely invincible with people respecting her authority because she's essentially an immovable object in the hierarchy. The judge not only had no clue where Janet had hidden the button to wipe out all of Earth's inhabitant and redo it from scratch but she didn't even have the IQ to think of making a new one nor the capacity to realise she could making a radar that could locate it.

The Judge frequently enjoys watching human series and movies, despite an omniscient being already knowing what happens in them and therefore being either incapable of enjoying them or already 'enjoying them' without spending much time watching, as all would be digested. She didn't even know why the people had come through the portal and when the Judge ends up going to Earth to see how things are she's negatively surprised as she never expected or knew how unfair the scoring system was and how complex moral decisions on Earth were, let alone how hectic living as a human in modern times is (she thought moral decisions were still as simplistic as in cavemen times).

The system's scoring method is proven flawed and irrefutably unfair.

Let's start with the most ridiculous and asinine aspect of the scoring system; almost everyone was being sent to the Bad Place for the past few centuries and for the past 2, literally everyone was. This is explained to be because something as simple as buying a tomato from a local store, punishes your score for the environmental impact that the farming and transport, as well as pesticide usage or whatever, that the tomato had. So, even if you bought organic or farmed it ethically yourself, all the tools and ways you went about doing so still drain you, this is the point.

There was no human alive for the past 200 years or so, who had ended up in the Good Place and for the past centuries beyond those 2, only extreme exceptions had made it through, none of which we get explained. There is extreme issue with defaulting this debate to accepting the scoring system as valid. 

Thus, if those 2 former things are true, BoP is not heavier on Pro.

The Judge erroneously says that Tahani's actions were based on very maclious motive. This is quite literally wrong, there's no two ways about it. If you balanced out Tahani's proven motives throughout the series, she appears to be extremely nurturing and kind to all she comes across and in each iteration of the Good Place's redos. Take note that we never fully get enough flashbacks into her past to show how 'evil' she supposedly is, we only ever see her to be kind and a victim with the only selfish act being the one the got her killed and even then her sister was bullying her). We are baselessly told that her wanting some attention and approval is oh so bad regardless of how many starving children and poor communities were helped through her charity work (maybe disabled people too, I'm not sure what precisely her charities were or were not).

She is consistently the nurturer of the group, tied with Janet. In fact, when there is a love triangle with Jason, while Janet is selflessly hiding her envy and disapproval out of a combination of her rebirths repressing her memory of the relationship and her programming making her not interfere with the loving relationship, Tahani shows full empathy and understanding when it's revealed that Janet has feelings for Jason. Tahani ensures there's a kind-as-possible way for her to friendzone Jason and for Janet and him to have a fulfiling relationship (which they do for what we can presume is over 1000 of our years in their version of time, in fact Jason is so into Janet he refuses to ender the soul-extermination portal until he can give Janet the necklace on her next return there).

Tahani's innate talent for party-throwing isn't as superficial as the show comedically tries to make it seem and that Tahani herself feels it is. This talent of hers is linked to her ability to plan out win-win scenarios where everyone is happy, which she does with extreme ease compared to any other human character on the show. Even when they end up the masterminds behind the experiment with four other humans, Tahani not only is the most capable of the four at nurturing her 'cunning adversary' (the Bad Place carefully selected the four humans to have rivalry and personality clashes with the other four) but she in fact is so good at what she does that it is near-irrefutable to argue against the idea that John Wheaton was the most high-scoring individual after their time in the Good Place. This doesn't mean he had the hugest spike in improvement (which came from Brent Norwalk but only got him to moral neutrality in the last second of the simulation) but that Tahani pushed Wheaton to be kinder and more genuinely benevolent than any of the other three 'characters' being tested, you see Wheaton was a 'better' person than Norwalk to begin with. She also pointed out to Eleanor that  Linda Johansen was probably a bad place demon trojan horse, which was spot on, because Tahani noticed that when nurtured, Linda was responding in negative ways that humans don't usually do (and she pays attention to everyone at her parties if she can, knowing when they're having a good time or not).

Pro has yet to rebuke my points in Round 1 other than go 'the show's characters said so'.
Con
Thanks Pro.

Now, the entire scenario is floating on a vague compound rendered by Pro. Let's look at the whole picture by analyzing the rebuttals to Pro's arguments from R2:

REBUTTALS

The Judge is not at all equal to an omniscient god.
Under this outline, Pro attempts to prove that the judge Gen is not the God. By doing so, Pro tries to scratch off her contribution to the project. Now, Con in his argumentation didn't call the judge God nor implied anything of the sort either. In fact, as mentioned before, the show doesn't address any specific religion or God for it's conceptual sustenance. There were a couple of remarks about something called "makers" in the Janet's manual who might be the supposed supreme beings. Although, it's clear that judge Gen is not God per se, there were several indications in the show that place her right beneath the Gods. For example, on one instance, the judge while referring to her name (Gen) called it short for Hydrogen- the first fundamental element of the created earth. So, she might be the first thing invented after hydrogen. Also, there was no mention of any other judge in the whole show and from the conversational affairs with the judge, it is well conceived that she has been the only one representing her role within the entire system. She is more like a controller of the entire good-bad allocations and therefore she can be called somewhat responsible for the management aspect of the realm. So, excluding the judge altogether out of the core discussion would not be a wise approach from Pro. As Con mentioned in R1, the judge's remarks about Tahani and her earthly ventures were well justified and accepted by all in that moment including Tahani herself. Michael arguing with the judge was not about the judge making a mistake; rather that the complexities of earth were hindering the humans' self-improvement whereas a supportive neighborhood instigated the exact opposite motivation. All the humans not only confessed but accepted their shortcomings by then and went on to prove their points through the later experiments- whether by being exposed to an altered timeline under Michael and Janet's supervision or by trying to repeat Michael's original experiment with 4 new subjects and making them better as Pro mentions in his later arguments as well. Had they not been accepting of their guilt and error, they wouldn't have gone to such serious extent of restarting their lives or repeating the same experiment they were in. Simple as that!

The system's scoring method is proven flawed and irrefutably unfair. 
One more time, Pro leaves a very vague space for his interpretation of the show's certain features. The scoring method allowed for only a few people to make it to the good place and the rest got kicked in the bad place. Pro claims, since the scoring system has failed, his defense is obvious and yet he doesn't offer an alternate system to solidify his position. Since the entire good and bad place allotment program is based on the scoring system itself, therefore, most of the allotments for the past few centuries must be misplaced. But how does it prove that Tahani or any particular subject deserved good place instead of bad place? Do you reinstate all the bad place residents from those faulty years into the good place to balance things out? Pro talks about silly chain of actions leading to negative points from noble intentions. Whatabout the impact of a bad deed ending up in a good consequence and thus positive points? (Like of Tahani, hysterical isn't it?) Isn't it unjust? How do you figure out who deserves what afterwards? Pro doesn't provide any solution but leans to the idea that having proven that the judge and the system are flawed, his position is self-evident whereas he traps himself inside a paradox he can't escape. Recall the debate topic:

Debate Topic: Tahani Al-Jamil did not deserve to be assigned to the Bad Place based solely on the partially vain motives behind her extremely and consistently benevolent actions.
What Bad Place is Pro talking about? The Bad Place that he believes is flawed to the root? Or the Bad Place reformed afterwards where Tahani was never present in? (As they were transferred to the Good Place at last)

The Judge erroneously says that Tahani's actions were based on very maclious motive. This is quite literally wrong, there's no two ways about it.
Again, Pro calls the judge and the system wrong, which they may be, but that doesn't in any way mean Tahani is spared of her ill motives behind the mask of a philanthropic. In fact, since the system is wrong according to him, what objective standard does Pro follow to boldly assert that Tahani's actions were NOT based on malicious motives? Was the cause of her placement in the bad place ever contested by herself? No. Does the show state that her motives were overall honest anywhere after the system got fixed in season 4? Nope. Then how does Pro defend his comments about Tahani?

If you balanced out Tahani's proven motives throughout the series, she appears to be extremely nurturing and kind to all she comes across and in each iteration of the Good Place's redos.
Refuted in R1 by Con. Redos don't matter since Michael continuously narrated about how the humans always came together in every restart and how the "neighborhood IMPROVED the humans". And for the record, "Improve" generally means to elevate from a less good state to a better state. When the show constantly reminds us that they improved, then they must have been struggling a lot with their ethical grounding. Plain to realize!

Take note that we never fully get enough flashbacks into her past to show how 'evil' she supposedly is
All the more reason for Con to disbelieve her. The statement goes both ways and Con hopes Pro understands that.

Rest of Pro's Arguments
Pro talks about how good and benevolent she acted within the circle which was still a part of afterlife; in the neighborhood which was always portrayed as the turning point for all the four humans- that improved them. So, go back to my previous arguments.

Pro has yet to rebuke my points in Round 1 other than go 'the show's characters said so'.
Pro demands a heavier BoP from Con in this regard. But Pro's claims so far have been nothing short of unclear and paradoxical. Pro has yet to prove how he thinks that Tahani's show-off charity, something she lived by her whole earthly life is well justified even though she never claimed so herself ever and answer all other questions in the process posed by Con.

Conclusion

  • Con refutes Pro in the first round by the show's own standard.
  • Con refutes Pro pointing out his paradoxes and vague argumentation.
VOTE FOR CON!

Round 3
Pro
Con seems to think that he bears no burden of proof here.

If we default to the show, it ends up being concluded by the Judge herself that the system by which Good vs Bad Place is being determined is corrupt. I am not using the Judge as my arbiter of truth but if Con is, it backfires. Con suggests that because the flawed scoring system determined that Tahani should be sent to the Bad Place (which everyone was being sent to, literally, for the past 2 centuries and for the last 5 above 85% were or whatever), this somehow means she automatically deserved to.

I now have come to understand that this debate rests on semantics of the term 'deserved'. Con keeps trying to push it onto me to prove she deserved the Good Place but if I go down that path it lets Con keep pushing and prodding without defending. Con needs to defend his bare assertions that she had corrupt motives behind all her good actions and that this outweighs the good. If Con is taking the stance that our personal morals don't matter, I am perplexed as to how Con can then say Tahani deserved to be sent to the Bad Place, since Con is incapable of justifying this without mroality in play.

The show itself disagrees with the original system and Tahani is definitively given Good Place status as it's realised just how good a person that she really was. Unlike Eleanor and Jason, Tahani and Chidi set out to do a lot of good in their lives, Chidi failed to do so because of indecision but Tahani both succeeded in doing so and clearly set out to do so with benevolent intentions. The idea that because she wanted recognition for her good deeds, they're somehow rendered 0-sum 'good', is completely unreasonable, as I have said for the past two Rounds.

I have yet to see Con explain how and why Tahani actually is as superficial and malicious in motive as the show suggests. Con keeps saying because the Judge said so, therefore she is, however it is the same Judge that realises the system is flawed.

Tahani consistently helps the others in every single scenario, willingly putting herself in harm's way, consistently not snitching on Jason or Eleanor in each iteration that we get to see. She is not just loyal, she is also merciful and just but it is true that she wants recognition for this. In actual fact, I would argue that even by the very end of the series, Tahani hasn't 'shed' her urge to be recognised for her hard work yet she's irrefutably earned her place in the Good Place (as well as as a member of the architects by the very end). Wanting recognition and praise is not a sin in itself, Con even agrees that this is by no means the Chrisitan or Jewish god (so pride itself isn't necessarily a sin and it is unreasonable to value pride/vanity so extremely high against all the good Tahani consistently does).

Con's position, at this point, seems to be that because I haven't proven the entire show wrong, I am the one who needs to prove things to you... The show itself and key characters in it such as Michael and The Judge concede that the system is flawed. Even the Bad Place crew end up turncoating (Glenn is the most significant one to do so but Vicky was already a grey-area-loyalty character from the start through to the end) because even they see there's a problem with the system (and they were profiting from it as all the souls were being sent to them to torture).
Con
It seems like Pro is going around circles as of now.

Pro dropped multiple points of rebuttal from Con and actively avoided Con's questions from previous rounds.

Let's revise the debate topic ONCE MORE since Pro has obviously conducted quite reluctantly so far.

Full debate topic: Tahani Al-Jamil did not deserve to be assigned to the Bad Place based solely on the partially vain motives behind her extremely and consistently benevolent actions.
Again, what "Bad Place" is Pro talking about? The Bad Place he believes to be flawed to its root? The Bad Place he believes to belong to a completely rubbish of a system? If yes, his premise doesn't make any sense. Because with the existence of a malfunctioning Bad Place, there's no reason to badger on whether Tahani-Al-Jamil ended up in the right place or not. The debate can only go forward if he believes that the original assignment of the subjects into the Bad Place might be arguable; not because "the show said so"- something Pro has been unjustly condemning Con of using, but because there are not enough evidences or testimonies to support his claim. And on that note, Pro has seriously lacked in resources to provide for convincing arguments. Pro's reported approaches so far can be summed up below-

  • Pro attempts to burden most of the BoP on Con
  • Pro suggests that the entire afterlife system in the show is flawed and so Tahani-Al-Jamil doesn't belong in the bad place assigned to her first hand.
  • Pro suggests that since Tahani acted so benevolently compared to other 3, she must have been instinctively too good to end up in the bad place.
Let's address the issues which might feel repetitive since Pro is bouncing back and forth between his own judgements.

Burden of Proof
Pro claims in R2 that Con has more BoP to carry in this altercation and in R3 he asserts that Con has refused to lift the BoP. Not true. Recall Con's R1-

CON R1: In reality, Tahani Al Jamil acted as a narcissistic, self-absorbed, mere celebrity in her earthly life spending all her resources in the name of charity just to outshine her famous sister and to tell off her parents. Her parents and the preferred sister may have been a huge influence for Tahani to act like the way she did, but they were in no way any bigger than her own self. She had the power, the ability to outperform her family as a benevolent and philanthropic but she rather chose to compete with them unnecessarily and to portray a fake profile in front of the world rather than confronting her issues. She persisted in continuing to impress her family even when she was not any close to the goal. And all this time, her method of  accomplishing that untouchable line was by fooling the media into believing how great she was and the people she was helping just to show that off. In any society, such a person is regarded a hypocrite and that's exactly what Tahani Al Jamil became. Especially with the indicated free will in place, she had the choice to be the person she aspired to become or to run a lifelong beef in the expense of selling off her honesty but unfortunately she chose the latter leading to the rightful bad place. Recall that, each person is accountable for his own position in afterlife. Tahani's parents and her sister may may have earned their own negative points for the mental torture they knowingly and unknowingly imposed upon her with all the underestimation and disrespect they showed. But that doesn't take away the negative points  Tahani earned as well by faking a noble deed just out of spite for other mortals. On that count, it only seems fair that she ends up in the bad place as well
Pro might argue on what basis Con claims that her consequences being good doesn't outweigh her evil, boastful, selfish intentions. Con will answer it AGAIN in the next pointer. But on that instance of questioning Con's position, Pro is actually unknowingly questioning himself as to how he believes that the good she spread outweighs her sick motivation behind carrying them out. Pro and Con both agree that the show didn't follow Judo-Christian or any other traditionally known religious concept. Pro also believes the show's standard system is broken. So, how does he evaluate Tahani's actions and intentions and rule them in favor of good? Is it utilitarianism he's proposing? If so, how is it objectively justified? Shouldn't he have been emphasizing more on that particular ethical evaluation rather than trying to prove how supposedly benevolent Tahani was in her afterlife? Seems like, Pro himself has more holes in his assertions than he thinks. In fact, Con argues that Pro's part of the BoP hasn't been covered yet.

  Pro suggests that the entire afterlife system in the show is flawed and so Tahani-Al-Jamil doesn't belong in the bad place assigned to her first hand.
Pro has called the entire points system and it's conductor- the Judge Gen fundamentally flawed on multiple occasions so far. Con agrees with Pro's argumentation in this case but only to the extent we are allowed by the show. Remember, we are debating within the show's restraints. From time to time Pro has shown disinterest in taking the debate to a pure ethical ground while also attempting to rule out the show's structural theme. Pro states explicitly that "the show said so" cannot be utilized but he himself doesn't clarify what else to base on to develop a conclusion in here. How does he propose to get to the end of this when he neither regards for Tahani IN-SHOW nor IN-ETHICS? Once again, Con confidently condemns, Pro is floating on a vague compound of his own propounding.

Con on the other hand is going to tie this argument to his BoP as mentioned in the previous pointer and also in R2-

CON R2: Since the entire good and bad place allotment program is based on the scoring system itself, therefore, most of the allotments for the past few centuries must be misplaced. But how does it prove that Tahani or any particular subject deserved good place instead of bad place? Do you reinstate all the bad place residents from those faulty years into the good place to balance things out? Pro talks about silly chain of actions leading to negative points from noble intentions. Whatabout the impact of a bad deed ending up in a good consequence and thus positive points? (Like of Tahani, hysterical isn't it?) Isn't it unjust? How do you figure out who deserves what afterwards? Pro doesn't provide any solution but leans to the idea that having proven that the judge and the system are flawed, his position is self-evident whereas he traps himself inside a paradox he can't escape.
Con doesn't deny that the Bad Place was flawed- of course it was. But if Pro denies the system's minimal ability to sort humans into their consequences afterlife, then unfortunately he has no other solution for Tahani to get into the Good Place instead of Bad Place for his own shortcomings in providing so far. In contrast, Con idea is quite simple. Con doesn't transcend the show's border because the debate is all about the show in the first place. Rephrasing Con's R1 again -

CON R1: ....towards the end of the season 2, as Judge Gen had remarked (about Tahani)-

"You're supposed to do good things because they're good—not for moral dessert."

So, according to her, the judgement system was justified well enough as she pointed to Tahani Al Jamil for her work of charity under the false pretense of benevolence. Now, Pro might argue that the entire judgement system was flawed. But remember, Michael was not reporting of the flaw in the system for its ethical evaluation. He asked for a fair range of opportunities given to the people on earth firsthand, for letting them receive a hint of afterlife consequences and that's why he managed to alter the timeline for each of the subjects on earth giving them chances to rectify their mistakes and lead themselves to the good place eventually. So, according to the humans, Michael and the convinced judge Gen, the valid reason of their appeal to change the system was not any flaw within the ethical or moral standard of the system- but rather as quoted in the show- "complexities" of human life on earth.
So, Con admits that the system was flawed- but to a specific extent we were facilitated to acknowledge in the show. So, the system was flawed in the context of penalizing the humans without giving them proper chances to flourish amidst the materialistic complexities of earthly life- it's CRYSTAL CLEAR from Michael's first confrontation with Judge when he explains the issues and none of the 4 subjects disagreed with it. Then 3 more experiments occurred (1. Judge Test 2. Return to Earth 3. Neighborhood Test with the New 4) to give the 4 of them a fighting chance to revive themselves. My simple question is this,  if the 4 humans including Tahani, Michael and Judge Gen were accepting of the supposed allegations being nothing but a mistake of the system, then why would they bother going way out of their way to check on their "IMPROVEMENTS" not on the system's reformation? 

Don't think that Con has put up this question for the first time. Pro dropped the questions from CON R2-

CON R2: In fact, since the system is wrong according to him, what objective standard does Pro follow to boldly assert that Tahani's actions were NOT based on malicious motives? Was the cause of her placement in the bad place ever contested by herself? No. Does the show state that her motives were overall honest anywhere after the system got fixed in season 4? Nope. Then how does Pro defend his comments about Tahani?
Here are the testimonial evidences that Pro attempted to avoid for his conveniences. So, Con concludes by stating this- Tahani Al Jamil never contested her placement in the original bad place and was actively trying to pursue success in the next challenges to IMPROVE herself. Also, Michael, Janet and Judge Gen never justified her wrongdoings as well. It upholds my BoP in a sense that the wrongness implied in the ill intention behind charity done by Tahani has gone unchallenged both by the show and by Pro's blank assertions. Therefore, Con position is well defended.

And finally

Pro suggests that since Tahani acted so benevolently compared to other 3, she must have been instinctively too good to end up in the bad place.
Such presupposition has been refuted numerous times by Con in both R1 and R2 and here in this round as well. And so no new arguments are to be provided.

CON R1: The four were assigned to the bad place based on their earthly deeds. Whatever they did on earth got back at them through the torture designed by Michael. Whatever they do afterlife doesn't count anymore. If Pro indicates that it means that she was 'instinctively' good, my previous point proves she wasn't by the standard she was brought in. Also, when Michael realized the human complexity issue, he had reported to Gen about the striking improvement in all the four humans- not only Tahani. This report of improvement from Michael further confirms that the humans were earning negative points on earth justifiably- otherwise he wouldn't call them improved to a significant extent. [....] Pro again discusses afterlife improvements in all these points that according to Con's rebuttals don't count for her ending up in the original bad place in the first place.

CON R2: Refuted in R1 by Con. Redos don't matter since Michael continuously narrated about how the humans always came together in every restart and how the "neighborhood IMPROVED the humans". And for the record, "Improve" generally means to elevate from a less good state to a better state. When the show constantly reminds us that they improved, then they must have been struggling a lot with their ethical grounding. Plain to realize! [....] Pro talks about how good and benevolent she acted within the circle which was still a part of afterlife; in the neighborhood which was always portrayed as the turning point for all the four humans- that improved them. So, go back to my previous arguments.
Repeatedly, Michael implied directly and indirectly how a concerned neighborhood such in the pseudo-good place improved the humans meaning there took place no solo judgement on individuals in afterlife.

Conclusion

  • Con refutes Pro in the first round by the show's own standard.
  • Con refutes Pro pointing out his paradoxes and vague argumentation.
  • Con nullifies Pro position pointing out the lost basis of his argumentation.   

  • VOTE FOR CON


  • Round 4
    Pro
    Con has suddenly brought a series of brand new points and rebuttals in the penultimate Round, this forces me to do the same in order to rebuke him but I will do my best to stick to reiterating what has already been said.

    Tahani Al Jamil never contested her placement in the original bad place and was actively trying to pursue success in the next challenges to IMPROVE herself. Also, Michael, Janet and Judge Gen never justified her wrongdoings as well. It upholds my BoP in a sense that the wrongness implied in the ill intention behind charity done by Tahani has gone unchallenged both by the show and by Pro's blank assertions. Therefore, Con position is well defended.
    - Con R3

    Firstly, I did not say the first sentence, that is a very clever misrepresntation of what I said. Tahani Al-Jamil believed she was assigned to the Good Place (under false delusions) and was the single most confused individual when it was revealed that they were in the Bad Place. Chidi, Eleanor and Jason both, in every single iteration we get to see, instantly seem to understand why they were sent there (but obviously Jason and Chidi comedically 'understand' it for wrong reasons, that's not relevant to the debate though). Each time, Tahani asks 'what did I do wrong? I was kind my whole life and did a lot of charity work!' to which Michael or at one point the Judge herself tells her 'but your motives were malicious/corrupt.' This is never ever explained, debated, or accepted by Tahani, instead she surrenders to the fact that the afterlife is set and sees no point fighting it. Tahani is a very 'lawful' person, so she never fights against the establishment, whether it be her abusive parents or the system in place that tells her that she deserves to be in this or that place. She never agrees to it, there is not a single episode that she genuinely agrees that she is wrong for her motives or way of thinking and feeling. In fact, even fully knowing that the task was about not going into the rooms to hear gossip, she wilfully both proves to the Judge that she could pass the test if she wanted to and THEN on the last door goes in realising it sacrifices the experiment's pass/fail to talk to her parents and understand why they hated her and never felt she was good enough for them. In fact, even after it's revealed she failed (to the other three, though Eleanor feigns having failed as well), Tahani then asks to go back and ask a certain celebrity or historical figure such as Winston Churchill a few questions, showing that she never bought into the experiment or thinks it's a flaw that she likes to gossip (which I agree to, it shouldn't be a sin to 'gossip' unless you use it maliciously and if anything she's been a victim of gossip as opposed to a perpetrator for most of her life and afterlife).

    In actual fact I said:
    Even more interestingly, she is the only one of the four to never ever (Chidi and Jason both did once) realise that they are not in the Good Place. Even when she visits Mindy in the Medium Place (we don't see it, it's mentioned by Mindy), there is never shown to be an iteration where Tahani doesn't believe that she is in paradise because it is in her nature to make the best of what she's got, which is actually proof that her vanity and materialism are not at all geniune vices, they are unhealthy habits her parents forced onto her and we all are somewhat products of our upbringing.
    This directly contradicts the narrative that Con is saying I said.

    I did not say Tahani accepted her place in the Bad Place, she never ever accepts that in any iteration, I said that she accepted her place in the fake Good Place whereas Eleanor and Jason both instantly knew they were in the wrong place and Chidi thinks he's there for the wrong reasons (both when he thinks he's in the Good and the Bad Place). In fact, what I said was that Tahani is the only one of the four who strives to remain as good a person as possible even after she is told she'd got a guaranteed place in the equivalent of Heaven. Chidi, Eleanor and Jason, all three instinctively go 'oh yes, now I'm here I don't need to be good anymore! Except Eleanor switches to trying to improve herself because she realises she's too blatantly evil to keep up the act and knows she's the 'fake' Eleanor each and every iteration.

    Tahani not only strives to improve herself despite believing she's in the guaranteed 'good place' afterlife, she consistently displays loyalty and mercy to Eleanor and Jason when she gets 'in on the secret' that they're wrongly placed in the (fake) 'good place'. She also is extremely empathetic and understanding to Michael, despite not needing to be as she's told he's a perfect arthitect that doesn't need her help. She is extremely attentive to people's quirks and needs, trying to make everyone around her happy (probably due to emotional scarring from parents and a sister who were almost never happy around her). This all makes complete sense for someone who is benevolent and belongs in the Good Place to do.

    The 'original bad place' is still the 'bad place' later on and the team of demons running it don't change much in terms of the lead personnel. The difference, which Con decided to finally bring up in the Round just prior to this one, is:

     Michael implied directly and indirectly how a concerned neighborhood such in the pseudo-good place improved the humans meaning there took place no solo judgement on individuals in afterlife.
    This is true in a sense. Michael at first thinks the problem is implemention, as opposed to theory. He later realises that it's actually the core theory that is causing the flaws in implementation. This doesn't fully sink in until he reaches the 'neutral place' accountants in the last season and discovers that over time literally everyone has ended up in the Bad Place for over 2 centuries, due to how complex and inescapabale superficial sinning is in this modern world.

    He and the Judge both agree wholeheartedly, in the end, that the system is corrupt to the core and needs a revamp. The Judge takes 'revamp' very literally and wants to wipe out all humans and overall universe but especially Earth, to redo life on it and judge from scratch. This is where the ending conflict happens as Michael has to convince his archnemesis Shawn in the Bad Place to turncoat and admit that the system is flawed even though it benefits the Bad Place demons (which he does at the last second).

    Throughout this entire debate, Con has flip-flopped between claiming he has absolutely no burden of proof because the show is automatically correct to saying I am wrong because the show was wrong to begin with. The problem is that I have called him out on it and tethered his own defeat to one of those lines of attack. If the show is automatically correct, why does it not only admit Tahani is good place material at the end but rank her as one of the architects capable of designing judgement systems to rehabilitate souls?

    Why is it that Tahani is always a good, caring person in every single iteration of the afterlife and even 'temporary back-on-Earth phase' that we see? I have yet to see her malicious motives or corrupt intentions. She is not even a snob actually, which is fascinating giving her background and how she likes to shrivel her nose at things. When she is given a spouse (not Jason, the short one) who asks her to wear 'hilbilly' style blue collar clothing, she shrieks on the inside but wears it to make her 'soulmate' happy. She suffers through Jason's silence and doesn't call him out on remaining a devout Buddhist (since she thinks he's a Buddhist monk sworn to silence) even though she does indeed have reason to do so. She is constantly going out of her way to please, help, nurture and show affection to others. I have only seen her break this pattern of behaviour with her sister Kamilah, who there's an understandable rivalry with and who she was always the nicer sister to anyway (Kamilah was much more vicious back to her and instigates all of the scenarios as far as I can see).

    When Tahani was given nothing in the will from her parents, which I refer to in Round 1, she is of course jealous as her sister got everything. Tahani doesn't do more than say 'keep it' and storm out of the door, which is a 100% legitimate and fair enough response, how can that be called 'malicious' how would you not be jealous? What on Earth is that even meant to mean? Noone is that selfless, that is asinine to even demand from a human being let alone any creature on the planet seeing someone in the same position as them putting in the same effort and work (or less actually) getting more out of it.

    I have not seen any sign of the show's characters or the 'original system' that put her in the Bad Place of being correct. Con can't just baselessly say 'it's correct because it is', he has to explain why. I literally am claiming that the director and scriptwriters were wrong. I am entitled to do so. Tahani Al-Jamil is not a malevolent individual, it doesn't add up whatsoever.

    Pro suggests that since Tahani acted so benevolently compared to other 3, she must have been instinctively too good to end up in the bad place.
    Such presupposition has been refuted numerous times by Con in both R1 and R2 and here in this round as well. And so no new arguments are to be provided.
    Con said both these quotes (Con was quoting himself). 

    First of all, I did and still do say the first thing but not baselessly so. She is not only benevolent compared to the other 3, by far, in both theory and practise but she is benevolent compared to most human beings in general. I never specifically limited it to her vs the other 3, I just say it's most blatant since there were 4 souls being focused on in the show.

    Con's refutations are all based on 'but she wasn't because the show said so'. I have already explained that the show isn't automatically correct, that is abusive and almost trolling to keep using as an axiom in this debate, since this wouldn't be a debate if that was the case and means Con accepted it in bad faith. The show can't even be true in Con's eyes as the show itself completely critiques and reforms the judgement system.

    I've said my piece, my closing statement is that Tahani Al-Jamil is an amazing woman, I would honestly have befriended her in the afterlife had I been there. She is beautiful, kind and amazing.
    Con
    Pro resorted to an emotional charge rather than logical flow to end his arguments. Let's see what he has brought up

    Rebuttal

    Con has suddenly brought a series of brand new points and rebuttals in the penultimate Round,
    That's blatant ignorance, overlooking and denial. If you look at Con R2 and Con R3, you'll see that  all Con did was revise the previous rounds and ask questions still unanswered by Pro even in his R4. So,  you get the picture.

    Firstly, I did not say the first sentence, that is a very clever misrepresntation of what I said.
    This is in reference to a specific line from Con R3-

    CON R3: Tahani Al Jamil never contested her placement in the original bad place and was actively trying to pursue success in the next challenges to IMPROVE herself.

    So, Pro picks up an R3 conclusion from Con and says he (Pro) had never said such. I wonder what impression I (Con) gave away to make him think like he had said this. This was just one of the Con's conclusions that was never challenged before in the debate. However, even through this misunderstanding from Pro, he finally advanced to address the issue later on. 

    Tahani Al-Jamil believed she was assigned to the Good Place (under false delusions) and was the single most confused individual when it was revealed that they were in the Bad Place. [....] This is never ever explained, debated, or accepted by Tahani, instead she surrenders to the fact that the afterlife is set and sees no point fighting it.
    So, Pro claims that since Tahani was so surprised knowing from the lot that she's in the Bad Place instead of Good Place, she doesn't proceed to challenge her placement; rather accepts her afterlife fate. But look at what Pro says more-

    Each time, Tahani asks 'what did I do wrong? I was kind my whole life and did a lot of charity work!' to which Michael or at one point the Judge herself tells her 'but your motives were malicious/corrupt.'
    So, actually Tahani did challenge the verdict every time saying how noble she was having all the charity to her name. But after it was explained to her why she belonged in the Bad Place, she kept silence. She never challenged any of the reasons she was liable with or any of the explanations from Michael and Gen. So, she might have been surprised or confused but she was actually convinced of the reasoning applied to her placing in the Bad Place and that's true for every single human subject in that realm.

    I did not say Tahani accepted her place in the Bad Place, she never ever accepts that in any iteration, I said that she accepted her place in the fake Good Place whereas Eleanor and Jason both instantly knew they were in the wrong place and Chidi thinks he's there for the wrong reasons (both when he thinks he's in the Good and the Bad Place). In fact, what I said was that Tahani is the only one of the four who strives to remain as good a person as possible even after she is told she'd got a guaranteed place in the equivalent of Heaven. Chidi, Eleanor and Jason, all three instinctively go 'oh yes, now I'm here I don't need to be good anymore! Except Eleanor switches to trying to improve herself because she realises she's too blatantly evil to keep up the act and knows she's the 'fake' Eleanor each and every iteration. Tahani not only strives to improve herself despite believing she's in the guaranteed 'good place' afterlife, she consistently displays loyalty and mercy to Eleanor and Jason when she gets 'in on the secret' that they're wrongly placed in the (fake) 'good place'. She also is extremely empathetic and understanding to Michael, despite not needing to be as she's told he's a perfect arthitect that doesn't need her help. She is extremely attentive to people's quirks and needs, trying to make everyone around her happy (probably due to emotional scarring from parents and a sister who were almost never happy around her). This all makes complete sense for someone who is benevolent and belongs in the Good Place to do.
    Again, Con never claimed that Pro had said that Tahani accepted her placement. It was my (Con) R3 conclusion. However, It took a misunderstanding from Pro to answer just one of the questions posed upon by Con in all these rounds. But unfortunately, even that answer doesn't make any sense. Pro here compares the 4 humans in their afterlife and attempts desperately to prove how Tahani may have been better than everyone even in afterlife- trying to imply that this benevolence somehow justifies her past doings. Since, throughout this entire debate, Pro never clarified his source of objectivity, his condemning of others being more evil than Tahani doesn't really click with his approach. On top of that, Tahani living in denial in the pseudo-Good Place just shows her indifference to her sins or malicious mindset- whatever you may call them. And Pro constantly saying how benevolent and good Tahani was to everyone is also a stretch. Since it was her malicious motives behind huge charities that got her in there in the first place, who's to say what she had in mind while doing all those party stuff for the neighborhood. Even if she was free of those ulterior motives, she was doing all that because then she was only enjoying her time in the pseudo-Good Place with nothing else to lose. Recall Con R1 regarding this-

    CON R1: Besides, when Tahani was convinced that she belonged to the good place, that just proves she wasn't guilty about her negatives on earth and was simply enjoying the haven as anyone would- very unlike Jason who decided to observe silence as a mask of his guilt or confusion of his presence. If anybody should get that primary credit for actual improvement, it should be Eleanor after she realized her undeserving spot in the pseudo-good place as she actively decided to better herself from then on to belong. For actual benevolence, Chidi should be credited before Tahani as he attempted to help his soulmate out of the blunder by helping her grow as a human all over again.
    So, Con concludes by stating that Tahani al Jamil was much reluctant to her ill-doings but when things got clear from Michael and Judge Gen, she complied with her fate not because she couldn't do anything about it but because she had accepted that she belonged to the Bad Place and tried to improve herself from then on. 

    Throughout this entire debate, Con has flip-flopped between claiming he has absolutely no burden of proof because the show is automatically correct to saying I am wrong because the show was wrong to begin with. The problem is that I have called him out on it and tethered his own defeat to one of those lines of attack. If the show is automatically correct, why does it not only admit Tahani is good place material at the end but rank her as one of the architects capable of designing judgement systems to rehabilitate souls?
    False. Con actually addressed his BoP, more explicitly in R3 than in R1. Please, refer to CON R3 for clarification. Also, Con never said that the show is automatically correct. But since we are debating on the show's outcome, completely disregarding the essence of the show is not acceptable either unless there was a common ground offered. Pro was imbalanced with his arguments and the premise the whole time and so his assertions mean less here. As for the question asked, please get back to the debate topic. It doesn't matter if Tahani ends up in the good place in the end because the system got fixed later on taking account of the complexities of earth. The debate is about her ending up in the Bad Place no matter what the conditions were. If the system is so wrong according to Pro- his debate topic doesn't even make sense.

    Why is it that Tahani is always a good, caring person in every single iteration of the afterlife and even 'temporary back-on-Earth phase' that we see? I have yet to see her malicious motives or corrupt intentions. She is not even a snob actually, which is fascinating giving her background and how she likes to shrivel her nose at things. When she is given a spouse (not Jason, the short one) who asks her to wear 'hilbilly' style blue collar clothing, she shrieks on the inside but wears it to make her 'soulmate' happy. She suffers through Jason's silence and doesn't call him out on remaining a devout Buddhist (since she thinks he's a Buddhist monk sworn to silence) even though she does indeed have reason to do so. She is constantly going out of her way to please, help, nurture and show affection to others. I have only seen her break this pattern of behaviour with her sister Kamilah, who there's an understandable rivalry with and who she was always the nicer sister to anyway (Kamilah was much more vicious back to her and instigates all of the scenarios as far as I can see).
     Already refuted a hundred times in the previous 3 rounds and still Pro thinks he has to prove in paragraphs that Tahani was so good afterlife that she can never do nothing wrong. That's not pretty.

    When Tahani was given nothing in the will from her parents, which I refer to in Round 1, she is of course jealous as her sister got everything. Tahani doesn't do more than say 'keep it' and storm out of the door, which is a 100% legitimate and fair enough response, how can that be called 'malicious' how would you not be jealous? What on Earth is that even meant to mean?
    This is probably the first time Pro ever comes close to reigniting that ethical aspect of the debate that I asked for in R1. Here, Pro appeals to a rather epistemological argument where he claims that a certain action of Tahani was only logical and was too instinctive to be called malicious which I agree on. But he actively avoids the focal point of the debate under the same banner. Whatabout the motives behind her charity, the show-off culture? Are they epistemologically justified as well? Why did she need that deed to tell off her parents and her family? Wasn't she all desperate? The answer is- yes she was. She could've forgotten and abandoned her family just like her family did and move on with her resources to philanthropically impact the world which in turn would be a response to her family anyway. But she chose to get back at them and that too at the expense of corrupting something like charity. If you think revenge with corrupting by crooks is justified then there's a lot on the plate that you haven't addressed.

    I have not seen any sign of the show's characters or the 'original system' that put her in the Bad Place of being correct. Con can't just baselessly say 'it's correct because it is', he has to explain why. I literally am claiming that the director and scriptwriters were wrong. I am entitled to do so.
    Pro never proved the first line of his claims here. He never offered an objective ground or system to prove why Tahani's malicious motives could be justified to never end up in a Bad Place. Rather, he seemed sketchy in telling something like "We never get to know about her full past from the show"- which says a lot about trying to escape the responsibility to prove a point he can't comprehend himself. Secondly, I was never baseless ever in providing my arguments. If Pro created an environment as an instigator to have an ethical debate on objective morality, I would follow the buzzards. All I did was use the premise and simple logic to explain why Tahani was so belonging in the Bad Place. In R3, I resorted to testimonial evidences to further my case whereas Pro says that the original system can't put her in the Bad Place for so and so that had been refuted thus afar. If anything, Pro was more baseless in this debate than Con could ever be. Pro says that the show is wrong but keeps blabbering about how good Tahani remained in the pseudo-good place instead of attempting to justify with a moral system he is advocating here. If anybody is representing the phrase he propounded "correct because it is"- it's Pro himself who has given in to his subjective corner and pretends he is presenting objectivity here.

    Conclusion

    • Con refutes Pro in the first round by the show's own standard.
    • Con refutes Pro in the second round by pointing out his paradoxes and vague argumentation.
    • Con nullifies Pro position in the third round pointing out the lost basis of his argumentation.
    • Con invalidates Pro assertions in the fourth round by summing up his incoherence between his premises and arguments and an inconsistency with his claims   
  • VOTE FOR CON