ImminentDownfall Should've Won his debate against Benjamin
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 1 vote and 1 point ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
In imminent's debate (https://www.debateart.com/debates/2736-it-is-in-the-best-interest-of-humanity-that-we-attempt-to-transition-toward-veganism), I believe that Fauxlaw's vote was unfair and that Imminent deserved to win the debate. No arguments from outside the debate. Burden of proof is shared.
Ben and Fauxlaw are the intended audience, but anyone can accept this.
(I wanted to vote as well but got too busy)
Pro wins on their other arguments. Con pretty much concedes the argument on the environment (besides saying they support more sustainable meat production, which they can’t just have “fiat” over and had to show was likely) and simply says it’s not an overriding concern. Pro seems to convince me that a less sustainable form of food production that contributes to pollution and food security is a bad one. That itself is enough to outweigh the intangible impact of food security through the oceans, because Con never explains why fish are necessary for food security, while Pro explains the scale of how much meat takes away from it.Pro’s argument on health is also stronger than Con’s corresponding argument on health – because while Con’s claims on health, e.g. lack of B12, are manageable through supplementation and careful diets, Con doesn’t have a path out of antibiotic resistance increasing the risk of disease (though sanitary conditions do mitigate the risk of simply ordinary disease spread). The argument on health from Pro also outweighs Con’s argument on fish supplies, because Con doesn’t explain why the latter are necessary for access to food, while Pro explains why their benefits tie specifically to transitioning to veganism.
“Tabula rasa (or tab ross) is technically defined as having no preconceptions. Thus one is not allowed to bring in their own knowledge or opinion into judging a debate round. They simply have to vote on what is there……………………………………….A tab ross judge is the fairest because they vote strictly on the debate, not on any opinions, bias's, or anything else. Just the debate.” https://www.debate.org/debates/Tabula-rasa-is-all-around-the-fairest-way-to-judge-a-debate-round./1/
“The ethical argument was defeated because Pro’s R1 claim was that killing animals is murder. That is wrong. It is killing, but not murder.”
We can practically ignore all of pro’s round one arguments. I challenged what “should” means. My opponent started with the hidden premise that who should win a debate is the debater that performed better. In my round one arguments I pointed out that, whoever wins the debate should be the individual who made the greatest impact by winning. Pro does not dispute that who should win is whose victory would make the biggest impact.
Pro has had plenty of opportunity to respond to that argument and it is clear that he chose to concede the framework of the debate to me. In particular he has agreed that my opinion of what “should” happen is correct, by dropping the argument. It is too late for him to challenge the framework now if he refused to do so in his rebuttal round.
Pro has the bulk of the burden of proof this debate. I ask the judges to remember that if pro disproves everything I say wrong, than that is still not good enough to win. He has to prove some reason why the greater positive impact on the universe came from imminentdownfall winning the debate (theoretically). Pro has accepted my framework, so failure to prove a win from imminent downfall would make a greater impact on the universe, means he lost. It doesn’t matter who he believes debated better or how many points he made in that direction.
It appears at the end of pro’s round that he forgets this. Here is what he says;
“Con and I both agree that Imminent was the true winner of the debate”
The true winner of that debate is the person who actually won, Benjamin. The scoreboard confirms it. I think in this use of the word “true”, pro means the “deserving” winner. Deserving being determined by who performed better in the debate. The current debate is not about who deserved to win or who argued better. Despite the fact it offends meritocratic thinkers. We are arguing who should win, and pro concedes my point that the person who should win is the person whose victory would make the biggest impact. It is an anti-meritocratic type of system of determining who should win, but it is the one we are using for this debate.
As confusing as this might be to some, this is differentiated between how people should vote on a debate. Just like the comparison that though the justice system should never let an innocent person be convicted of a crime, nor a guilty person go free, what should happen is not what jurors should think about. Jurors should be considering whether there is evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, which means in practice that a lot of guilty people go free and a few innocent people go to jail. This confusing but true logic that differentiates how people should vote and who should win a debate goes unchallenged by pro. So keep all of this in mind when judging, even if you think the logic I am applying is silly.
Hall Of Fame
I am conceding the points on the hall of fame arguments, While true that pro deserves to be in the HOF, this debate is unlikely to cause it. I asked pro to crowd source his arguments so that way he could have hall of fame tier arguments here. He refused to do so. Don’t get me wrong. Pro is capable of making those types of arguments. However he is in a season of life where he doesn’t want to give that much effort. Maybe he is too busy to go all out, but still finds debating fun so engages in it. Maybe there is some other reason, but I am aware he is in that season of life. I concede the arguments about the potential for this to be a HOF debate.
The Problem with voting
Me and pro agree that there is a problem with voting on the site. The whole debated was created by pro to highlight a problem with voting and to confront it directly. The creation of the debate itself is an admittance to the fact that fighting the weight of bad votes outweighing the votes of people like Terjetics is a worthwhile thing to pursue.
I have a confession. I had also kept in mind when formulating the solutions that voting is so rare that it needs to be encouraged or at the very least, not discouraged when formulating ways to make sure good voters have more impact on the results of the debate. I am glad that me and pro, both agree this is a real problem, which is why I take issue with pro’s next statement;
“"tabula rosa" has already been set as a standard since the beginning of the site's construction. Despite its existence, questionable votes have popped up from time to time. So this argument doesn't seem to offer a unique benefit. Fauxlaw already had many votes removed that hinder the tabula rosa method, but we did not consider it a big problem.”
On a personal level I want to ask pro “What the hell did you create this debate for then?” . Pro acknowledges there is a problem, creates an entire debate to highlight the problem and then when I offer some potential solutions. Just 3 of literally millions of possible solutions to the problem he throws his hands in the air and acts like solutions aren’t worth pursuing.
On top of that pro makes the next assumption. The next solution I think is a huge problem with kids these days, society in generally but mostly with those of a liberal type of mindset. This is what pro says;
“Con's showing of the issue is impressive but it's hard to say for sure the moderators will take this into consideration. We have recently tried to exert stronger standards and better voting guidelines, but nevertheless, Fauxlaw's vote was still considered borderline acceptable”
I don’t personally think any of Fauxlaw’s votes ever should be removed. Everyone should be allowed to vote, and the more thorough the vote is and the more they gain a reputation as a competent voter, the more weight their vote should hold. However the statement above gives us a window into pro’s brain.
Pro thinks community change should be based on just the efforts of moderators. I think the last people involved in community change should be moderators or developers or site owners. If change occurs from the ground up, it ensures that any change made at the top levels has the blessing of the community. That is what the next section get’s into.
The solutions I suggested just touch the tip of the iceberg of possible solutions that are community based. The solutions fall into 3 categories, none of which would discourage or punish bad voters, while at the same time would either incentivize good voting or make good voting more heavily taken into consideration when determining the winners of debates. Let’s see.
1. Community based weighting- This does not require mods to do anything. This solution would in fact make the jobs of voting mods easier, because it means they take non action. If whiteflame votes and we decide his votes should be worth triple, we just recruit 2 people to always ghost his votes. We just build a grassroots team to do this and ask the mods to back off.
2. elo based incentives- Okay this one would remove the mods also. It is just something the developer can build. My opponent can argue that the system might be imperfect, but their seems to be a community census that some people are better voters and thus when they have the option of thumbs upping or thumbs downing the vote to help determine the voter’s ELO, I doubt there will be much controversy on who have the highest voting ELOs.
3. Crypto voting- This is also a community solution and not a mod or developer thing. We just have a group that creates and hands out crypto dollars to people based on the quality of their vote. Incentives can be community based as well. Use it to purchase things like my friendship or other intangible items like maybe the mods allowing them to say maybe spam a thread for one hour. I don’t know, the sky is limitless,
I win. My framing of the debate went unopposed and pro has made zero arguments that are even relevant to the accepted framework and has only mitigated the good of my arguments by claiming that encouraging the right thing is pointless and we should give up.