Instigator / Pro
35
1512
rating
2
debates
50.0%
won
Topic
#3219

The sentencing of Brock Turner

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
15
3
Better sources
10
0
Better legibility
5
1
Better conduct
5
0

After 5 votes and with 31 points ahead, the winner is...

dfss9788
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
5,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
4
1593
rating
21
debates
66.67%
won
Description

Background: In 2015 Brock Turner, a Stanford student, was caught in the act of raping an unconscious woman behind a dumpster. After Turner was convicted by a jury, the judge sentenced him to 6 months in jail and 3 years of probation, among other terms. The sentence was perceived as light by the community and the judge was ultimately removed from office using California's recall procedure. Further reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_v._Turner

Resolved: The sentence given by Judge Persky in People v. Turner (2015) was appropriate

I will be arguing in favor of the sentence.

5,000 character limit per round in the interests of brevity

Format:

I will waive round 1 by stating only the following in round 1: "Round 1 waived per debate rules."
You will waive round 3 by stating only the following in round 3: "Round 3 waived per debate rules."
I (Pro) will not be permitted to respond to your (Con's) round 1 until round 3.
I (Pro) will not be permitted to respond to your (Con's) round 2.
Voters are instructed to disregard any response I (Pro) makes in violation of these rules, except that it may be considered a conduct violation.

The purpose of the foregoing rules is to conduct the debate in a manner which eliminates the contender's advantage and also to deprive my opponent of any opportunity to take advantage of me posting my case first.

-->
@949havoc

Just a bunch of baseless assertions. Keep living in lala land.

-->
@dfss9788

You'll notice I've not yet had a completed debate, yet, but I know how I'd respond. If someone forfeits after I've prepared arguments, and I do have a debate in voting, now, that has already had that result. I win, and will take pleasure in that, and be grateful for the experience and knowledge gained in research for the arguments I made. MY plan is to always have at least two rounds of argument prepared before I initiate a debate, and I accepted debates and had one round prepared, less rebuttals, before the initiator has posted their first round. Don't worry so much about my bunched panties, cupcake, and I won't mention yours, ok? Yeah, I think the judge was a creep, not worthy of wearing his robes, and glad he was stripped of them, because, bottom line, the defendant was guilty of rape, and the judge treated it like it was a case of stealing candy.

-->
@949havoc

Want to know what happens when you do the work to make a case and the other person forfeits? You get disappointed. That happens all the time here. You know how flaky people are here. Your assumption of cowardice is baseless. You just got your panties in a bunch. Look at your vote. It's chock full of "OMG the judge wah wah"; Just like every idiot around you assume so much but you know so little. "The victim's appeal for justice was slapped in the face. I'm left wondering why the judge chose to rape her a second time" Come on... the victim in this case asked that there be no jail time. Of sentencing, the victim stated: "I don't want him to feel like his life is over and I don't want him to rot away in jail; he doesn't need to be behind bars."

-->
@dfss9788

Go ahead, if that floats your boat. Can't stop you, can I? Nor would I. People refuse debates all the time. Does that mean they're all cowards. or, might it mean the subject just does not interest them? That happens to be my position, thanks, but, you think as you will.

-->
@949havoc

You refused to accept my stated reasons for the debate format and assumed cowardice. Given that, why should anybody accept your stated reasons for refusing to debate rather than simply to assume cowardice?

-->
@dfss9788

Besides, you're going to win the debate by forfeit, so keep your powder in your pocket.

-->
@dfss9788

"There's no justification for that.Argumentation"

A little education is in order:
From the Help Center, Debates, Argumentation:

"In this stage participants take turns publishing their arguments, to which they each have up to five opportunities as determined by the pre-selected number of rounds at the time of creation."

That means in your challenge, you established a 3-round debate. The expectation is that you enter 3 rounds of argument/rebuttal/ defense... which does not allow for a waived round. Just following the guidelines, cupcake. Being that is the standard, in your debate challenge, my argument would be a kritik. Sorry, not interested.

-->
@949havoc

"As instigator, you should always have the first word, and your opponent has the last word"

There's no justification for that. I don't believe you at all. You're just bitching because you got triggered by the position I've taken here and you're rationalizing your hostility with stupid allegations. I am willing to debate you and give you the last word. You'd better come up with a better excuse for refusing than format because that one doesn't exist anymore. Perhaps you can say just too busy or have better things to do. Sure, they'll believe that.

-->
@dfss9788

Nice try, but you set up your debate with a waiver before knowing who your opponent would be, so stop trying to say any different, now. As instigator, you should always have the first word, and your opponent has the last word, whether you are Pro or Con.So, do the prep work necessary for that role and debate even if your opponent forfeits. That's just the risk you take. I still maintain that waiving is a coward's way.

-->
@949havoc

"a personal appeal to Pro: why waive any round? You want a two-round debate, just specify a two-round debate. I view designed waivers in a debate by an initiator as cowardice. You want to have the final word in a debate, never initiate a debate, because reasonable protocol has the initiator offer the first word. Only cowardice wants to initiate, and then see what the opponent's arguments are before rendering one's own argument. Just because waivers are not formally prohibited is no reason to initiate a debate with that feature. In other words, get a backbone."

Largely I'd rather not put the work in unless the other person is going to. As you can see here, had I put the work in, all I would have gotten was a forfeit and no actual debate. That's what would have happened, and that's no fun. That's not cowardice, that's me not having any confidence that my opponent will fulfill his end of the bargain. You can debate me on the debate resolution if you wish, unless you're too cowardly perhaps?

-->
@Nyxified

Oh well

-->
@dfss9788

I apologize for the forfeit. With school starting I just lost track of time.

-->
@TheUnderdog

I shared similar concerns when I first learned of the case, but when I looked in to it more I changed my mind about it based on various things.

-->
@dfss9788

I strongly disagree with you, but I don't have the time to debate this. Rapists should get life imprisonment with hard labor.