The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 15 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
This debate will last for 4 rounds, with 3 days to post each round. There will be 10,000 characters available to each debate for each round. Voting will last for 2 weeks. I am taking the Pro position.
Some form of polygamy should be legal.
Polygamy: the practice of having two or more legal spouses simultaneously
Should: expresses desirability, expediency, prudentiality, and/or advisability
1. No forfeits
2. Citations must be provided in the text of the debate
3. No new arguments in the final speeches
4. Observe good sportsmanship and maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere
5. No trolling
6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)
7. For all undefined resolutional terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate
8. The BOP is evenly shared
9. Rebuttals of new points raised in an adversary's immediately preceding speech may be permissible at the judges' discretion even in the final round (debaters may debate their appropriateness)
10. Violation of any of these rules, or of any of the description's set-up, merits a loss
R1. Pro's Case; Con's Case
R2. Pro generic Rebuttal; Con generic Rebuttal
R3. Pro generic Rebuttal; Con generic Rebuttal
R4. Pro generic Rebuttal and Summary; Con generic Rebuttal and Summary
- Any would-be spouse must be aware that they are entering a polygamous marriage (and the exact number of spouses and children involved) before the marriage can be conducted
- Any person wishing marry additional spouses must notify any existing spouses of their intention to marry an additional spouse and must also receive the consent of those existing spouses to marry that additional spouse
- All participants in a polygamous marriage must be at least 18 years of age
- Absent other mutually agreed, legislated, or court-ordered arrangements, custody of any child belongs to the biological, married parents within a polygamous family
- Polygamy should not be restricted to any gender- or sex-based restrictions or guidelines (e.g. 1 man with many women)
While polygyny may benefit the men involved, it denies wives to other men, especially young, low-status men, who tend to measure their success by their manhood, that is, by the twin parameters of social status and fertility. With little to lose, these frustrated men are much more likely to turn to crime and violence, including sexual violence and warmongering. It can be no coincidence that polygamy is practiced in all of the 20 most unstable countries on the Fragile States Index.
All this is only aggravated by the brideprice, a payment from the groom to the bride’s family. Brideprice is a frequent feature of polygynous unions and is intended to compensate the bride’s family for the loss of a pair of hands. Divorce typically requires that the brideprice be returned, forcing many women to remain in miserable or abusive marriages. If polygamous unions are common, the resulting shortage of brides inflates the brideprice, raising the age at which young men can afford to marry while incentivizing families to hive off their daughters at the soonest opportunity, even at the cost of interrupting their education. Brideprice if often paid in cows, and, to afford a bride, young men may resort to cattle raids and other forms of crime. Gang leaders and warlords attract new recruits with the promise of a bride or an offer to cover their brideprice.
In suppressing intrasexual competition and reducing the size of the pool of unmarried men, normative monogamy reduces crime rates, including rape, murder, assault, robbery and fraud, as well as decreasing personal abuses. By assuaging the competition for younger brides, normative monogamy decreases (i) the spousal age gap, (ii) fertility, and (iii) gender inequality. By shifting male efforts from seeking wives to paternal investment, normative monogamy increases savings, child investment and economic productivity. By increasing the relatedness within households, normative monogamy reduces intra-household conflict, leading to lower rates of child neglect, abuse, accidental death and homicide. These predictions are tested using converging lines of evidence from across the human sciences.
The correlation between violence and polygamy (strictly, polygyny — being married to more than one wife at the same time — as having more than one husband is much rarer) is not just about violence to women. It is also about violence among men. From Troy to Brigham Young, from Genghis Khan to Islamic State, there has been a tendency for nations that allow polygamous marriage to exhibit more crime and more warfare than those that do not. The cause is increased competition for mates. Polygamy results in more unmarried young men, and these commit most violence.
Even moderate polygamy can produce large imbalances. Imagine that in a village of 50 men and 50 women, two men have four wives, four men have three wives and fourteen have two wives: that leaves 30 men chasing the remaining two women. A recipe for trouble.
A fascinating 2009 paper called The Puzzle of Monogamous Marriage, by the anthropologist Joe Henrich and his colleagues, detailed the historical correlation between polygamy and crime, chillingly explaining it thus: “Faced with high levels of intra-sexual competition and little chance of obtaining even one long-term mate, unmarried, low-status men will heavily discount the future and more readily engage in risky status-elevating and sex-seeking behaviours. This will result in higher rates of murder, theft, rape, social disruption, kidnapping (especially of females), sexual slavery and prostitution.”
In South Sudan, brideprices may be anything from 30 to 300 cows. “For young men, the acquisition of so many cattle through legitimate means is nearly impossible,” write Ms Hudson and Ms Matfess. The alternative is to steal a herd from the tribe next door. In a country awash with arms, such cattle raids are as bloody as they are frequent. “7 killed, 10 others wounded in cattle raid in Eastern Lakes,” reads a typical headline in This Day, a South Sudanese paper. The article describes how “armed youths from neighbouring communities” stole 58 cows, leaving seven people—and 38 cows—shot dead “in tragic crossfire”.
Thousands of South Sudanese are killed in cattle raids every year. “When you have cows, the first thing you must do is get a gun. If you don’t have a gun, people will take your cows,” says Jok, a 30-year-old cattle herder in Wau, a South Sudanese city. He is only carrying a machete, but he says his brothers have guns.
Jok loves cows. “They give you milk, and you can marry with them,” he smiles. He says he will get married this year, though he does not yet have enough cows and, judging by his ragged clothes, he does not have the money to buy them, either. He is vague as to how he will acquire the necessary ruminants.
Liberals sometimes feel that it is narrow-minded to favor traditional marriage. Over time, my reporting on poverty has led me to disagree: Solid marriages have a huge beneficial impact on the lives of the poor (more so than in the lives of the middle class, who have more cushion when things go wrong).
One study of low-income delinquent young men in Boston found that one of the factors that had the greatest impact in turning them away from crime was marrying women they cared about. As Steven Pinker notes in his recent book, “The Better Angels of Our Nature”: “The idea that young men are civilized by women and marriage may seem as corny as Kansas in August, but it has become a commonplace of modern criminology.”
even the birth of a daughter correlates with CEOs being more generous in employee compensation and benefits than the birth of a son. This study was conducted among 10,000 companies in Denmark, so it has to be taken as research among a fairly homogenous population, but there is plenty of evidence in it that gender has a more profound impact of the actions of men than we thought. Mothers and even sisters have a keen correlation to the generosity of men.
Contingent on the country, about 10 to 17 percent of the sampled marriages were polygamous. Women in such relationships were, depending on the country, about 1.3 to 2 times more likely to be at risk for physical violence from their husbands than women in monogamous marriages.The results for polygamy didn't come as surprise, Christobel Asiedu said, because women in polygamous marriages tend to have less power and are more likely to be dependent on their husbands
- Women are not chattel. Con's approach to the debate topic is itself degrading towards women. He treats them a commodities which must be kept in supply for men who simply cannot control themselves. Women are not commodities and should not be regarded as such. We should broadly reject Con's case because of the fundamental way it regards women.
- Criminalizing the innocent. Making polygamous marriages illegal means that individuals who--for cultural, religious or other reasons--engage in polygamous marriages become socially ostracized and placed in unjust legal jeopardy. "[A] key challenge for now comes from the lack of legal protection – such as laws that prevent discrimination – for poly relationships. In the US Army for instance, adultery is even seen as a crime, meaning a person cannot be ‘out’ as poly if they are married."  In other words, these individuals have to live their lives in secret and, if they're caught, could be penalized simply for living their lives.
- Pariahs no more. One of the main reasons polygamous families may not be functioning optimally, according to Con's data (which I dispute below), is that they are treated as social pariahs. The more their relationships are normalized, the more likely they are to be comfortable using various resources available to straight couples and living mainstream-style lives.
- Reducing Adultery. Polygamy would likely reduce adultery. Adultery, as a contributor to crime and divorce, is something which ought to be reduced. "The legalization of polygamy would go a long way towards eliminating a lot of these reasons. In a polygamous society falling in love with another person need not sound the death knell of an otherwise successful marriage. Instead a marriage of two can be expanded to three and even further if necessary." 
- Expense. Women are expensive, which places an upward limit on the number of wives most men could conceivably have. Even a man with a couple of million in the bank would have a tough time attracting more than a small handful of women, because as demand for women increases, so to would the demands of women on their potential suitors. It is thus highly unlikely that polygamy would lead to a severe drought of marriageable women.
- Tradition. In many cultures (particularly in the West), polygamy is not viewed favorably. Cultural pressures to remain in monogamous relationships are likely to discourage high rates of polygamy, and are thus likely, to ensure a reasonable supply of marriageable women for the general population of men. In fact, "there are only an estimated 500,000 poly relationships in the US, which is a tiny minority." 
- Polygamy itself. Polygamy is the ability of individuals to take multiple spouses. I can envision a situation where a man has multiple wives, but those same wives also have multiple husbands. This inter-spousal sharing, so to speak, prevents any one man from monopolizing a large group of women, and could potentially prevent a shortage of wives.
- Polyandry. I am not just calling for the legalizing of polygamy (1 man with many women), but also polyandry (1 woman with many men). These practices have the potential to balance each other out to some extent, ensuring a viable supply of marriageable women.
- Gender Imbalance. In countries or regions with more women than men, in fact it makes quite a lot of sense to endorse polygamy, because otherwise a disproportionately large number of women will be unmarried. Why only focus on making sure men get married as Con does? It's fundamentally misogynistic to prioritize men having spouses over women having spouses. And, as I noted in my case, in countries or areas where men are the primary breadwinners (a reality of life), it is important for the wellbeing of those women that they are able to get married. 
- Dependent Premise. This argument depends entirely on the premise that polygamy creates a shortage of marriageable women. Insofar as that premise is flawed, so too is this entire argument.
- Correlation =/= Causation. It may be the case that polygamous societies have high rates of crime for reasons unrelated with polygamy. Consider that many of these countries are in areas where resources are already scarce and where terrorism and war have historically been high for political, religious, and ethnic reasons. Even if a definitive link to polygamy were shown, it would be nearly impossible to assess the exact impact on violence would be, making this argument difficult to weigh.
- Brideprice. Outlawing brideprices, as should be done, would immediately reduce the incentive to engage in violent raids and crimes like those described in Con's Sudan example.
- Dependent Premise. This argument's impact depends entirely on the premise that polygamy creates a shortage of marriageable women. Insofar as that premise is flawed, so too is this entire argument.
- Non-unique. Participants can be civilized in polygamous marriages as well; nothing Con has said precludes polygamous marriages from having a civilizing impact on the parties to it.
- Correlation =/= Causation. Con's source takes its data from "Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, and Zimbabwe." These countries are already likely to have high rates of domestic violence given the latter two's poverty, the latter three's political instability, and all four's comparatively weak government control of rural regions. More than that, data from just four countries (and which came from only 10-17% of the sample) cannot be generalized out to polygamy everywhere.
- Potential Solvency. Women in Tanzania are able to use a cultural practice involving marriage between straight women to escape domestic violence. "This means she can keep the family home which is jointly owned with the younger woman, despite a tribal law which dictates that only males can normally inherit property...It is believed marriage between women is helping to reduce the risks of domestic abuse, child marriage and female genital mutilation (FGM) within the tribe which has more than 700,000 members." [7, 17, 18] The idea of straight marriage between women as a means of pooling resources and protecting each other from harm has the potential to significantly reduce domestic violence in some cultural contexts.
- Relationship Satisfaction. One would imagine that if domestic abuse were rife within polygamous or polyamorous relationships, that relationship satisfaction in these relationships would be low. In fact, that's not the case. "[I]ndividuals in poly relationships are better at communicating and that jealousy is often lower. In new research...she even discovered that overall relationship satisfaction can be higher in poly relationships, though another earlier 2015 reviewfound that satisfaction was similar among monogamous and 'consensual non-monogamous' relationships." 
- Brideprice and Divorce. Much of the reason why wives may be more unable to leave polygamous relationships (as opposed to monogamous relationships) can be attributable to a lack of legal divorce options in relevant jurisdictions or the brideprice. By ensuring that divorce is legal (which I support) and by ensuring that the brideprice is illegal, this problem can be solved altogether.
I’m sure my opponent argued pluralism as some sort of pre-emptive strike on what I would argue. I’m not sure what he expected my arguments to be, but I don’t want to spend too much time on this. Pluralism as I understand it, is just the common sense notion that no group has a monopoly on the truth or how best to live. I agree for the most part. I think he also agrees that sometimes we have to create laws that do ban certain cultural or religious practices, if they are deemed harmful.
The Quran advocates for stoning homosexuals to death.
"if a man comes upon a man, then they are both adulterers," "If a woman comes upon a woman, they are both Adulteresses," "When a man mounts another man, the throne of God shakes," and "Kill the one that is doing it and also kill the one that it is being done to." https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/homosexuality.aspxSo does the bible and Torah
“‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+20%3A13&version=NIV
We have all the major Abrahamic religions advocating for stoning homosexuals to death. If my opponent wants to argue that we should allow that sort of pluralism than fine, but I suspect even he would put limits on how much we respect the beliefs of others when it comes to creating laws.
I fear I have spent too much time here, stating the obvious, that it is a balance, weighing the right to practice your religious beliefs with individual rights, what is good for society, and banning some practices that are harmful to individuals and society.
III. Religious Freedom
Religious freedom is important, but just like we ban stoning homosexuals, and ban or should ban all forms of slavery, we need to balance the harms and the benefits.
Pro says: “polygamy has been debated as an issue of religious freedom, with various fundamentalist groups believing that it is a religious requirement that they enter into polygamous relationships”
I don’t know about some people on this site, but I always look into citations. The citation my opponent used to support the conclusion that some groups see polygamy as required is an off shoot of Mormonism called the FLDS church led by Warren Jeffs. I’m a sensitive guy. Overly so, and I am crying while writing and researching this. There is no easy way to put this. This group advocates for polygamy, claiming it is required for their religion as a pretext to molest child brides as young as 9 years old. Here is a description of a video excerpt shown at Warren Jeff’s trial.
“The sound quality was poor, but the packed courtroom hung on every word. Jeffs' voice drifted down from ceiling speakers like curling smoke. The FLDS "prophet" both threatened and reassured the girl, mumbling prayers that enjoined her to joyfully perform God's will. In the courtroom, hands involuntarily flew up to cover mouths as it became clear that the girl had been restrained on a sort of temple altar bed, while several of Jeffs' adult "wives" stood by to assist him in case the child panicked. Five minutes into the recording, Jeffs' droning prayers were accompanied by the sound of rustling clothing. Then came a rhythmic heavy breathing that no adult could misunderstand; it went on and on. At one point, Jeffs, panting, asked the girl if she "liked it." She answered in a small, squeaky voice: "I'm OK, sir." “ https://www.hcn.org/issues/44.10/flds-continues-abusive-polygamist-practices-in-utah-and-arizona
When you say we should respect a groups religious practices, using a group who molests little girls, is perhaps not the best example. Granted his plan says nobody under 18, but 18 year old girls are naive and can be just as easily coerced into joining these abusive relationships, I think it is worth noting what happens to the young boys in these societies that really promote polygamy. The FLDS church my opponent used as an example of those who should have religious freedom in that regard shows yet another example of why these social practices are harmful to society.
This is a type of society that requires that females outnumber men, so what happens to excess boys that are no longer needed. They are expelled from the community, sometimes as young as 13, and often are desperate and fall prey to child molestors. They are typically uneducated and have no experience in the real world, so turn to drugs, alcohol and crime and many also become homeless. http://flds101.blogspot.com/2008/05/flds-life-101-lost-boys.html
If this is his lone example of a group that requires polygamy of it’s members than we can forget the religious freedom argument. He uses examples of groups that permit polygamy, but only of one who requires it, and it is a poor example at that. I really want to show that it is hard to find examples of large religions that require polygamy, so let’s continue.
“In some African faith systems, the more wives, and thus children, a man has, the "greater the chances that the family will enjoy immortality.”
So what, In my round I showed why polygamy harmed probably many of the same African Faith systems he is referring to. I think the key words here are “greater chances”, so we have a system where the likelihood of immortality increases, but they can still become immortal without polygamy, so we aren’t really stopping them from having eternal life by banning the practice, plus I need to know more about these specific faith systems from my opponent to know why the believe that. This could just be a poor english interpretation of what their more complicated belief system is.
“Islam also allows for polygamous marriages under certain conditions, and some Muslims believe it to be their religious duty to have multiple spouses.”
Once again, I want to show the source my opponent is using, and it is worth it to actually read through the sources we both use on this debate so you can get a full picture of this. https://www.newstatesman.com/lifestyle/religion/2013/04/what-kind-woman-willing-share-her-husband
“The Quran instructs Muslim men to “marry women of your choice two or three or four””
“but warns that “if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly [with them] then only one or [your concubines]. That is more fitting so that you do not deviate from the right course.” The Prophet Muhammad said, “Whosoever has two wives and he inclines towards one to the exclusion of the other, he will come on the Day of Judgement with his body dropping or bending down.”
The reason this verse is important is put into perspective by a holy man and expert on Muslim practices.
“In other words, “It is mission impossible,” according to Mufti Barkatulla, a senior imam and sharia council judge in Leyton. He firmly believes that there is no place for polygamy in modern Britain. “There are a number of cases we have come across and there is hardly a case where a man can balance all the duties required in a polygamous situation . . . In today’s industrial society, it is impossible to observe the conditions laid down by the scriptures.” Polygamy, he points out, predates Islam and was permitted in Islam in the context of war to offer protection to war orphans and widows. Many of the Prophet’s 11 wives were widows”
My opponent quoted a stat that 83% of societies around the world allow polygamy. A read the article cited and it said the same thing, no citation though. Just a sex journalist stating the statistic is there, but after scouring the internet for a few more hours I think I got close to the original source. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/203674
A 1998 study by Douglas White professor and anthropologist. The stat is of how many societies existent and no longer existent have been polygamous, which is quite different than estimating current societies. But why did we go from 85% of societies being polygamous to now 25% if divided by countries (58 out of 200 as mentioned by bsh1).
An anthropological study looking at the reasons why polygamous and monogamous societies flourish or suffer has discovered the conclusion in a 2012 anthropological study. The study says:
“In suppressing intrasexual competition and reducing the size of the pool of unmarried men, normative monogamy reduces crime rates, including rape, murder, assault, robbery and fraud, as well as decreasing personal abuses. By assuaging the competition for younger brides, normative monogamy decreases (i) the spousal age gap, (ii) fertility, and (iii) gender inequality. By shifting male efforts from seeking wives to paternal investment, normative monogamy increases savings, child investment and economic productivity. By increasing the relatedness within households, normative monogamy reduces intra-household conflict, leading to lower rates of child neglect, abuse, accidental death and homicide. These predictions are tested using converging lines of evidence from across the human sciences.”
VI- Situational Benefits
“a new study of polygyny in Tanzania finds that the practice of sharing a husband may, in some circumstances, lead to greater health and wealth for women and their children”
I think we can agree that when rich men are the only ones getting married than women not forced to marry broke men will have better access to quality healthcare, resources and food, but my studies show that it is worse for society over all especially economically which is probably the biggest reason women would seek polygamy, because of bad economies that cause them to be desperate enough to seek security nay survival over being with their true love
- Pluralism precludes Con's case. Con's case is entirely predicated on a consequentialist paradigm, which is in inherent contradiction to pluralism. Respect for basic freedoms often comes into conflict with pursuit of beneficial outcomes. In fact, almost all of Con's response to my case come from this consequentialist mindset, reflecting Con's totalized value perspective. To the extent that Con's case is an expression of a totalizing value or a totalizing value mindset, it must be rejected out of hand.
- Pluralism means no values are inherently better than any others. Human welfare is just one good out of many and cannot inherently outweigh the other goods expressed within my case. It is a balancing act, as Con admits, and so human welfare, as a value, is not more weighty or valuable than any other value which we must balance within a pluralistic framework.
- The freedom of any religious group should not be curtailed because of the gross misconduct of some of its members.
- The group in question is not inherently problematic, because for 32 years, at least, it lived a crime-free existence, with the sole exception that it was polygamous.
- In my world, Jeffs and his accomplices would have still faced legal repercussions for their misconduct; child abuse would be legal in neither of our worlds.
- By making polygamy legal, we can reduce the appeal that fringe faiths like this have for people interested in the polygamous lifestyle. If polygamy is legal, people interested in it would not need to seek out seclusion from the world within these fringe groups. Thus, legalizing polygamy would likely reduce the potential for this kind of abuse.
- Con suggests that 18 year olds are open to manipulation, but this is true in his world too. If they are manipulable, they are manipulable in a monogamous or polygamous society.
- It is important to note that Con has not drawn any definitive link between polygamy and child predation. If the FLDS had been a monogamous cult, the misconduct may have been just as likely. Indeed, many monogamous cults have engaged in such abuse. 
- Polygamy prevents innocent people from being unjustly made criminals
- Polygamy reduces adultery
- Polygamy has the potential to reduce domestic violence through the legalization of polygamous marriages among women
- Polygamous relationships have higher relationship satisfaction measurements
4. Observe good sportsmanship and maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere
10. Violation of any of these rules, or of any of the description's set-up, merits a loss
Well, I guess I’m the sex panther of voters.
50% of the time, I vote for Virt every time.
So, as we can all see: no evidence of any kind. again. He’s very good at making accusations, very poor at actually providing justification for them.
And like so many other times, when he actually makes specific claims, you end up proving yourself a liar.
I give virt all my votes? Omg that’s so true.
Out of a total of 5 non forfeit/concession votes.
And as for Bsh1, you are absolutely correct that I have voted for him 100% of the time. I have consistently and repeatedly voted for him in every single debate of his I have voted for: every single only one of them - this one.
So yet again: you’re flat out demonstrably full of shit. Which is why, again, you have absolutely no credibility.
>Until then, I’m going to treat your insane, paranoid claims - asserted with no evidence or justification - with the appropriate amount of disdain.
Sure. But I'll bet you're also going to keep giving bsh1 and Virt all your votes.
Think about it, you're the reason why many members won't do formal debates. Fake voting. You proud?
But take heart, the people who hire your fake votes have the greater sin. You're just the muscle, not the Don.
No, I think the fact that you keep going on these nonsensical rants, with any proof of anything.
You’ve accused me of being the only person to vote in a particular way, when 3 other people also voted that same way. You’ve also asserted - with no evidence - that I only vote one way, and keep asserting that I only vote one way even after many, many, many examples of me voting other ways is presented.
I’m saying that you have a history of making things up, producing no evidence to support your claims: and then simply repeating those same lies over and over again because you think the “gentle reader” doesn’t see that you’re a liar. You have no credibility as a result.
If you can produce any specific example wher you think my vote was unfair or unreasonable - go ahead, and I will happily defend every vote I have made.
Until then, I’m going to treat your insane, paranoid claims - asserted with no evidence or justification - with the appropriate amount of disdain.
You really think alleging silly things like "rants" sways the Gentle Readers? You and Virt gave all points to bsh1. You and wylted are in the Voting Club with Virt who appointed you, and Virt and bsh1 are mods, aaaaand, bsh1 is about to be #1 on the leaderboard as the best debater. Oh my! How serendipitous!
You're not just a ringer. You're the boards OFFICIAL ringer, by appointment to his majesty bsh1. Virt used to be a pretty good person. I guess bad company does ruin good character.
Excellent observation - you are spot on noticing that no fortune cookies voted in this debate.
Frankly the rest of your angry fact-free rant is not based on anything resembling reality. Maybe we’re all part of the Illuminati?
Right, but it wasn't a fortune cookie that gave full points to bsh1 after your pal and fellow vote club member wylted threw the match in the last round. It was you and fellow vote club member Virt.
"Vote Club" is starting to take on a whole different meaning. My God this is petty. Fakery and cheating to raise your elo? Really?
No offence, but I’ve seen fortune cookies that were better at discerning the current state of reality than you are.
It is clear this entire debate is a sham by wylted and bsh1 to pad bsh1's elo. Bsh1 and wylted are good pals from long ago.
I’m still in the process of analyzing the arguments, but I wanted to record my vote first.
Totalizing means to the exclusion of all else, in that context. So, to prioritize freedom to the exclusion of privacy or free speech to the exclusion of equality is problematic. There can also be degrees of "totalizingness."
“The common mistake among valuers that leads to a 'totalizing' of values as 'absolutes' or 'ultimates' is to forget that any given value encompasses only an aspect of reality and ought not to be treated as transcendent or reducible to that reality”.
Could you please explain what you mean by “totalizing” in this context and throughout?
I do it at the end of each of my rounds. Asking the voters for their vote, even in constructives, is neither unusual nor inappropriate.
Direct quote from the end of round 1
"Thank you! Please vote Pro!"
No he did not. He stated the resolution is affirmed and to vote for him. That's standard practice. I've seen him do it in every single debate
You did it in round 1
I never declared myself the victor. I asked for the voters' votes. it is standard practice both IRL and online to urge or ask voters to vote for you at the conclusion of the debate.
But as I pointed out in my vote, the silly extra rules that people tack onto the description aren't strictly enforceable.
I did not threaten to kill you. I am done here. Speak away about me, my assumed lifestyle and my job. Fucking joke.
Doesn't even deny threatening to kill me and will get a free pass
Another open threat I'm sure you'll get away with despite me being threatened with a ban for supposedly lying in a debate if I don'the offer an apology and retraction.
His rules say that type of conduct is an automatic loss. Different rules than the other debates
"...bsh1 declared himself Victor before I had a chance to post."
You do that all the time.
You did it when you debated me on ice in fast food beverages.
You did it in the "can God lift a rock, bla, bla" debate.
So if your argument is that bsh1 should lose this debate because he declared victory before the debate was over, then you would also need to concede both of those other two debates.
Rm is tempted to say he would hunt me down and murder me or some other insane shit, but doesn't want to violate the COC. Dude is a piece of work.
RM, get a job stop spending so much time on here . Are you mooching off of people you supposedly love? I'd that why you have so much free time to post arguments the level of what a low IQ 12 year old would post, if they had enough time to sloppily research those subjects?
Is everyone just focused on the perceived lie in the final round and ignoring that bsh1 declared himself Victor before I had a chance to post. You guys need to learn how to see the whole picture instead of zeroing in on one thing. He'll bsh1 even dropped the arguments about war and violence being more common in polygamist societies and the mentions of basically treating women like commodities to be traded for sheep. His arguments center around if somebody claims to have a religious belief supporting their abusive practice than their abusive practice should be tolerated fuck how it affects society as a whole or the young naive 12 year Olds taken advantage of in these societies
@Wylted if I was head mod, CoC would be quite different when it comes to this matter. Can't say it without breaking threat CoC.
You'd be banned though, I can say that much.
Rm, I have just as much power as bsh1, I'm not screaming "unfair". I probably have more power. I wear a fedora, and this is my playground. For now, but I can always create a new one. I have plenty of disposable income. I feel like a failure for not having the amount a 6 figure income would bring me, but a I have enough to create and market a new playground.
bsh1 has not acted unfair, but I just wanted to show he isn't exactly the saint people think he is by pointing out the subtle threat. He is a shitty confidant anyway. He has insight he holds back from me, on me. I think he would be happier if I stopped opening up to him, but he'll have to suffer until I get that possibly life altering insight he is holding back. Also how are you going to block me Bsh1 when I am in your mafia game?
In fact, it has always been moderation's position that by posting content from a PM with moderation, the discloser waives their privacy in that context: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/538?page=3&post_number=51
And, it is not a threat. I am offering to reveal screenshots confirming that I am innocent of the absurdity I've been accused of.
Wylted, when you break the ankle of a bear that is otherwise tame, it is going to claw and bite not just for defence, but also out of an innate urge for retribution.
Don't fuck around with your confidant and expect not even the slightest reminder of who has power. You had no place lying like you did, you also will find I got that debate deleted and that everything you said about me on that debate comments section was proven wrong.
I have honour, I understand the balance between honour and naivety and how to not have too much of honour such that I am ridiculously naive without losing said honour. Honour is not the same as being noble. Being noble is being known for being honourable, many dishonourable people have been noble in the past and vice versa. The biggest example is Winston Churchill, he is fierce and great at what he did but my god he was dirty behind the scenes. In fact the entire middle east and its issues are due to something he and FD Roosevelt... Well, let's just say... Israel was not step 1, it was step 2. The problems that happened with Israel weren't entirely unintended. Anyway, I am quite unlike Churchill. I am far more honourable than noble. I am not known for said honour all that much but those who know me, deeply appreciate it.
Don't play around with people if you aren't ready to get beaten at your own game. First learn how and why to be honourable, then experiment with how and why to afford to not be it.
I like the subtle threat, you'll reveal the full contents of the PM, a new rule you never mentioned previously. bsh1 knows the PM reveals personal information about myself because I treat him like a confidant, something I do with no other user here. I don't care though, they'll have access to all of that information soon enough.
Don't dare question my honor
Right now, that is the case for full mods, yes.
But with mods it applies even if not mod related?
The PM disclosure does not apply to assistant mods unless the discussion is mod-related.
Don't worry Castin, I am not a pussy to betray you because you are mod. Our gossip is safe af.
Please pay attention here to what you have exposed yourself to.
Oh, I'm sure. I doubt you would say something like that.
But even if it were true, for the purpose of the debate, it wouldn't matter on who actually won. So it was an irrelevant "argument" anyway.
It did not happen, and I am more than happy to furnish photographic evidence to prove the point. Since Wylted has supposedly quoted from our PM, he has waived all privacy claims to the content of our PM.
Alright, good to know. Consider my accusation of PM Doxxing officially retracted.
That aside however, even if harassing PMs did take place, that still strikes me as an outside issue to the debate itself. Wylted would be right to complain about such an event, but not within the context of the debate itself.
You can disclose mod PMs so long as those PMs do not violate any other user's rights. That said, by doing so, you give the mod permission to reveal the contents of the PMs.
Yes you can as long as the disclose doesn't relate to another user.
"I believe it has been discussed and approved that you can disclose mod PMs"
I was not aware of this. If true, I retract any accusation that it was a violation of the rules.
But is that the case? Can we disclose moderator PMs?
Since I never said such a thing, the lie itself is poor conduct.
I believe it has been discussed and approved that you can disclose mod PMs
Lol wut? That was the oddest closing argument ever.
Lying to achieve a win is extremely low.
Please vote on this debate. Very quick read
You've got 4 hours-ish to post.
I'm going to try and wake up early enough to do this. Tough though with only getting a few hours of sleep a night. It's always 2 hous a day of sleeping or 16. The extra hours awake are usually dedicated to more passive study and menial labor. Critical thinking is harder with less fuel in the tank.