Budgies are cute
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 4 votes and with 12 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 5,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
No information
- Budgerigar, also called Shell Parakeet, popular species of parakeet (q.v.). [2]
- a cute puppy
- a cute smile
- having or relating to the power to attract
- APPEALING: : having qualities that people like : pleasing or attractive
- arousing interest or pleasure: CHARMING
There are more budgies in the world than any other type of pet bird. People have loved them from the moment the Australian budgerigar was first introduced into European bird collections in the 1840s. And if there’s one thing that’s propelled them to the top slot, it’s sheer personality. [budgies/most_popular_bird]
Budgies have become the most popular and most common pet birds in the world - due to a combination of compact size, beautiful markings / colors of their plumage, playful nature, low cost and exceptional talking abilities.Budgie enthusiasts have long recognized how very smart these parakeets are; and appreciate that they are far less troublesome than their larger cousins.Budgies are amongst the most loved parrots around the world. They are smart, affectionate, and beautiful, and come in a wide spectrum of color variations and varieties.
- My job is to prove that Budgies are pretty or attractive, which means that proving either to be true is a fulfilment of my BoP.
- Since the word cute is innately subjective, the statement "Budgies are cute" is a fact if people think budgies are cute.
- People DO think budgies are cute.
- I have proved that budgies are pretty.
- I have proved that budgies fit all three definitions of attractive, going in-depth on each one.
- PRO can't make intellectual arguments to dispute my evidence since it's all subjective.
- The only option for PRO to win is to deny that the information presented by me and my sources is valid.
- My R1 evidence was not disputed; especially not my evidence of Budgies being pretty
- CON admitted that budgies have the power to attract, and CON has thus conceded that budgies are attractive.
- The definition requires budgies to either be attractive or pretty. I have proved that they are both attractive and pretty, and CON has not disputed this
- Cute: attractive or pretty [especially] in a childish, youthful, or delicate way
- Youthful: not old or mature
- Delicate:
- pleasing to the senses: generally pleasant
- marked by daintiness or charm of color, lines, or proportions
- marked by fineness of structure, workmanship, or texture
- Endearing: arousing feelings of affection or admiration
- Budgies are childish
- Budgies are youthful
- Budgies are endearing
- Budgies are cute, pretty and attractive as per my unrebutted R1 evidence.
Arguments - Con actually says something in his opening argument that I agree with "However, as the premise ambiguously puts a generic idea about budgies being cute, I argue he has to prove budgies are generally cute.". This was the premise that Con agreed to and if Pro was arguing that only some budgies were cute then that should have been in the title. However Pro did produce at least three arguments in his round 1 opening that barely got touched upon by Con, and Con failed to counter much of Pros arguments with rebuttals or bring light to negative aspects such as times when budgies have brought negativity or harm to people et cetera. One such example is Pros argument "Budgies have aroused a lot of interest, to the point where they are sold all over the world and kept as pets. Pleasure means "a source of delight or joy", and budgies have indeed arisen joy and delight into people", which was met with little rebuttal or counter argument. In round 2 Pro produces five arguments, and are those arguments countered? No, instead they are met with a forfeiture. Con does not really make up for this in the final round either, by simply stating "but like, who really knows?". Therefore should the forfeiture in round 4 go down as an argument loss or a conduct loss? As Benjamin is already 16 7 ahead it seems unfair to punish Con twice for same crime, and therefore I will put it down as a conduct violation and will accept "but like, who really knows?" as saying that it is all a matter of opinion, which would be correct, and will call the argument a Tie.
Sources - Pro produced photos and other links throughout. They were not questioned by Con, and Con produced no evidence whatsoever, therefore Sourcing must go to Pro
S & G Neither stood out as typing under the influence of alcohol - tie
Conduct - As has been explained in my opening, it was either Pro wins by argument or conduct. Benefit of doubt goes to Con, and I punish the forfeiture only once, instead of twice.
Forfeit - Conduct plus Round 3 from Con was almost a forfeit too.
Only Pro uses sources effectively (only uses sources actually, from what I can see Con doesn't use a single external reference).
I think Pro makes a few significant errors with S&G in general.
In Round 1, Pro says "PRO can't make intellectual arguments to dispute my evidence since it's all subjective." That is one of quite a few strange errors (use of 'PRO' instead of 'CON' for starters) and keeps switching around words instead of cute, such as 'attractive' and 'pretty' that in a debate like this significantly matter because at times it's not clear what on Earth Pro is actually saying about the budgies in specific sections. Con even capitalises on this in Round 1.
Another example of very strange S&G is doing this to the resolution:
"Resolution: Budgerigars are attractive or pretty"
This is really dirty play semantically but more importantly it makes Con seem to be able to attack either resolution (the actual resolution or the new one Pro has strangely twisted words to be the resolution) instead of what it tried to do; force Con to attack only the new one and concede to the old one.
S&G is so significantly warped by Pro that I am positively telling you I could not process the points, I don't care how casual the topic is, if this were a more serious topic it would blatantly be worthy of the vote so I will vote here. Pro's Round 1 in particular was an S&G disaster.
Con is clear throughout, so S&G to Con.
Arguments go to Pro because in Round 2, Pro accepts Con's kritiks and attacks and starts to elaborate on what cute itself means and how budgies can be argued to meet aspects of it, though I feel 'childish' was really weakly defended, Con never replies to or attacks it.
More importantly, Pro turns the Kritik back onto Con saying that if it is subjective, Con can't prove they aren't cute, only that they aren't VERY cute in essence (end of Pro's Round 2 highlights this explicitly). Con never rebukes.
Not a very meaningful debate, but I'll put the five or ten minutes in (who am I kidding, I over think everything and double check my writing incessantly, it will be at least fifteen)...
Pro offers pictures of some birds, which I indeed find subjectively cute, and builds upon that with a good band wagon appeal of a source determining they are the most popular pet bird. And even offers a nice syllogism for how useless they are.
Con basically counters that pro hasn't proven enough of them are cute. I must give con some credit here, as he did not do the lame thing of saying every last one, but merely focused on the vast majority... The problem is that con has not offered sufficient challenge that there are any non-cute ones; there's got to be pictures of them, or some standard of beauty to which they do not conform to cute. Con does offer question of if they are beautiful does that mean they are not cute, but he did not show why these two levels need be mutually excessive.
Anyway, three round debate, to which con forfeited R2, and offered no arguments in R3...
Argument: Pro begins by offering definition of "cute", stipulating that qualities of cuteness are: "childish, youthful, or delicate." Pro further embellishes, without need, adding "attractive" and "beautiful." This is too much supporting definition, with all of it being subjective; there is no solid evidence declaring iterations of any of these words. Some think spiders are cute, others do not. Con successfully argues the subjectivity of the Resolution. Pro doubles down by declaring, in R2, "Childishness, youthfulness and delicateness are not requirements for being called cute..." This effectively cuts pro's entire argument, making it indefensible. Points to Con.
Sources: Only Pro offers sources for his arguments, but the R2 Pro argument against his own argument nearly loses these points. They are only held in Pro's corner for having any sources at all. Points to Pro.
Legibility: Tie
Conduct: Indeed, Con forfeits R3, but Pro declaration that Pro has thus won the debate ignores that by Policy, a single round may be forfeit without loss of the debate. Although Con's reply in R4 is not an argument, it cannot be called a forfeit, either. Therefore, Pro's declaration of forfeiture by Con is out of bounds. point to Con
Either of you; if you disagree with the vote, don't complain to me; I can do nothing to a submitted vote; I would not do it anyway simply by your complaint, even if I could. Go to a Mod. You do so by reference to the debate [copy/paste its URL] and PM a Mod with your complaint, requesting my vote be removed. The Mod will review and render judgment.
"Con notes in his R1: "Pro notes that he and many people think budgies are *beautiful*, not merely cute. He has not proven that Budgies have traits that are common to youthful or childish animals." MY RFD advised the bad choice to add adjectives to your original elements of "childish, youthful, and delicate," particularly when, in R2, as my RFD recognized, you argued that, "Childishness, youthfulness and delicateness are not requirements for being called cute." You tanked your own argument.".
But was this argued or brought up by Con? If not then surely that is a black mark against Con.. Though unless Pro argued this, that is also not worthy of expressing an opinion on.. And those appear to be your arguments, not arguments made by either of the debaters. It would require a seperate debate with yourself to establish that your opinions are correct. They may actually not be.. Also whilst a forfeiture may not be an automatic argument loss, perhaps had the party that forfeited, had not forfeited, then those points might have been raised and Pro might have had the chance to respond to those points.. The fact that we will never know should not reflect more badly on the person that did not forfeit and there is no reason to offer any benefit of doubt to the person that did.. But regarding the conduct point, you somehow managed to state that Con had forfeited, and that Pro had somehow handed the conduct point back by making some kind of violation. So should this not be a tie considering it is in your opinion one violation each? How did you manage to conclude that Pros violation was any more serious than Cons forfeiture?
So you felt like I declared victory when I literally didn't, and then you punished me for that? I only stated that my evidence was sufficient to conclude that budgies are cute, I didn't override boundaries for fairness as I have done before. My arguments were unrebutted, as I explained in R2 that PRO's R1 claims don't rebut my arguments, he merely challenged me to provide more evidence.
The adjectives being a part of the definitions isn't my choice, it's the choice of society that creates words and gives them meaning. In R1, I cited an official definition and showed why budgies fall under that definition. In PRO's R1, he made claims about my BoP that contradicted the definitions, essentially adding his own criteria for cuteness. My arguments aren't contradictory or self-defeating. I simply explained that I didn't have to provide more evidence, but did it regardless because I love budgies.
Your R3: "My opponent has forfeited, leaving my argument unrebutted." Con rebutted your argument in his R1, and R2, demonstrating your own wandering argument, as I said in my RFD. And, as I said, the Voting policy allows a single forfeit, yet you declared a forfeit [I took that as a declaration of victory] ignoring that Con had an additional round left to enter. I call that a premature call of victory, because Con did have a remaining round to offer rebuttal.. So what if he forfeited R3?
Con notes in his R1: "Pro notes that he and many people think budgies are *beautiful*, not merely cute. He has not proven that Budgies have traits that are common to youthful or childish animals." MY RFD advised the bad choice to add adjectives to your original elements of "childish, youthful, and delicate," particularly when, in R2, as my RFD recognized, you argued that, "Childishness, youthfulness and delicateness are not requirements for being called cute." You tanked your own argument.
Thank you for voting.
Also, I pay you respect for viewing the pictures and thinking budgies are cute.
Would you care to vote? I don't think it would take too much time.
Welcome to the website and all its dirty ways.
Fauxlaw
Your critique of my R3 conclusion is absurd. I simply stated that my evidence was sufficient to conclude that budgies are cute. I did not declare victory, lest you think that every debater in every argument's conclusion declare victory merely by concluding that their case is correct given the evidence they provided. In other words, you are giving CON the conduct point for a crime I didn't commit, and if I did then every other debater always commits the same crime. Your conduct point awarding is unfair.
Also, your granting of argument point to CON is also nonsensical. CON makes no argument, and you use your own reasoning to conclude that my argument is contradictory. You are not analysing a debate, you are acting as the CON party should have acted during the debate. My R1 evidence was enough to conclude that budgies are cute, and you simply ignore all of the evidence I provided. Nope, your vote is not fair at all.
Oh, I see.
-No argument for CON.
-No sources for CON.
-CON barely wrote anything.
-CON forfeited.
-PRO's R2 arguments went unrebutted, and his R1 evidence not disputed.
-PRO's case being correct by definition -- the very definition of cute uses as an example a puppy, which signalises that subjective opinion is enough to call something cute. Thus by mere budgies being the most popular bird in the world proves they are cute. This argument is made and not rebutted.
Seems like the debate to vote CON, doesn't it?
I swear this debate contains more definitions than the actual dictionary.
Seeing semantical monsters like this, I don't know what to think.
Budgies are actually not from hell, they are from Australia.
Bop on pro, be careful
What the hell are "budgies"?
Your back as usual