Forfeitures harm both arguments and conduct.
A forfeiture occurs when either side in a debate is a true no show for a round, allowing the timer to expire. It is not to be confused with merely waiving a round, or having an abysmally poor argument (see Foregone Conclusions below).
Any unexcused forfeited round merits an automatic conduct loss, but arguments must still be voted on or justified as a tie. Repeated forfeitures waives the need to consider arguments (you still may, but by the choice of one side to miss at least 40% of the debate, the requirement ceases. And yes, this does apply to Choose Winner, which otherwise would not allow conduct to be the sole determinant).
Should either side forfeit every round or every round after their initial arguments (waiving is not an argument), the debate is considered a Full Forfeiture, and any majority votes against the absent side are not moderated (a vote may still be cast in their favor of the absentee, but is eligible for moderation to verify that it is justified via the normal voting standards).
I have seen, before, a debate where a debater forfeited Round 1 and 3 but not Round 2 and people were entitled to vote 'FF' reasoning against them. Consider that in this debate over 40% of the 2 Rounds has been forfeited by Pro.
==
Pro decided to provide definitions suddenly, which I dispute some of.
Time isn't a 'point in time' because that is a self-refuting definition. Time is as follows:
the thing that is measured as seconds, minutes, hours, days, years, etc.
the system of those sequential relations that any event has to any other, as past, present, or future; indefinite and continuous duration regarded as that in which events succeed one another.
I also dispute the definition of 'energy' which has been cherrypicked by Pro to fit the colloquial usage which then implies an individual can sacrifice it as opposed to exchange it rather than store the catalyse for it (glucose in forms that include fat).
Energy is as follows:
energy, in
physics, the capacity for doing
work. It may exist in
potential,
kinetic,
thermal, electrical,
chemical,
nuclear, or other various forms. There are, moreover,
heat and work—i.e., energy in the process of transfer from one body to another.
In its most common definition, energy is the
ability to do work. In other words, everything that can do work has energy. In the
case of energy, doing work is also known as causing or making change. Energy is either transformed or transferred every time work is being done. This means that since it changes forms every time it’s used, the
amount of energy in the universe will forever remain the same.
'Energy' is a physics term, the most accurate explanations and definitions are likely to come out of physics websites and expert opinion, not simply a dictionary. That said, even dictionaries support this.
It is important we do not just define it as Pro did because that implies that energy is an ability as opposed to a transferrable resource (which is always the same amount in the universe at all times but merely transfers the form that its in).
I accept Pro's definitions of 'woman', 'sacrifice', 'their' and 'some'.
This leaves 'wellbeing' as a definition I don't inherently dispute but also one I am not sure is worded precisely.
==
I am forced to rebuke Pro in a Round that Pro cannot reply to, this is due to Pro deciding to have the entire contentions and constructive in the final Round of debating.
C1.
- Any action of raising a child demands the sacrifice of time and energy. To argue against the resolution is to state that mothers dont have to raise children. This would have demonstrable effects on society, and the lives of our most vulnerable.
No it doesn't, this contention basically treats my Round 1 as if it didn't exist. Instead of Pro abusively debating a truism, I made it clear that Pro is actually debating for something that is incapable of being true. Time is not owned by anybody, you can only sacrifice opportunity cost.
Opportunity costs represent the potential benefits an individual, investor, or business misses out on when choosing one alternative over another. Because opportunity costs are, by definition, unseen, they can be easily overlooked. Understanding the potential missed opportunities when a business or individual chooses one investment over another allows for better decision-making.
You can use 'time' to benefit the children but you are only sacrificing what you could be doing instead, the time is moving/trickling/eroding at the same pace in the same way, no matter how you decide to utilise opportunities in a given frame of time.
Furthermore, energy that one spends to the benefit of children being considered 'sacrificed' is to imply that the energy had a usage other than the children that it could be better spent on, which is being sacrificed. Again, it is the alternative opportunity which is sacrificed, the energy is merely transferred and the time is ticking away at the same pace regardless.
C2 and C3 are both negated by the same ideas as I have negated C1 with.
==
Now, let me defend against Pro's rebuttals to my R1 points.
Firstly, I take back/concede the joke about Pro's mother, it depends on one's sense of humour how to take it. I was assuming after the forfeiture that this would be a free win and felt like a flex to entertain the audience on what would otherwise be a stale read as I was winning no matter what I wrote overall.
Secondly, the relevance of the 'some women' rather than all is linked to the resolution because it is an inherent concession by Pro that clearly not all women should be sacrificing time and energy on children. I then expanded on it, saying that women who will feel it's a sacrifice are the most likely women to make bad mothers. I stand by this statement.
Common Toxic Traits
Signs you might have a toxic parent include:
- They’re self-centered. They don’t think about your needs or feelings.
- They’re emotional loose cannons. They overreact, or create drama.
- They overshare. They share improper info with you, like details about their intimate lives. They use you as their main source of emotional support.
- They seek control. They might use guilt and money to get you to do what they want.
- They’re harshly critical. Nothing you do is ever good enough. They don’t respect your good traits or achievements.
- They lack boundaries. They might show up unasked at your home, or attack your life choices.
The most likely type of personality and parent to be this way would very likely feel the child is a burden that they continually sacrifice time and energy on (even though you genuinelly cannot semantically sacrifice time at all). I would argue that the C3 child neglect point of Pro actually backfires because of this. If anything, the most likely women to neglect their children are the ones who feel the times and energy-exertions where they were benefitting their child's wellbeing were sacrifices, as opposed to a joy or thing they wanted to be doing.
To be clear, “toxic parent” isn’t a medical term or a clearly defined concept. When people discuss toxic parents they are typically describing parents who consistently behave in ways that cause guilt, fear, or obligation in their children. Their actions aren’t isolated events, but patterns of behavior that negatively shape their child’s life.
The thing is, parents are human beings. And that means that they may make mistakes,
yell too much, or do potentially damaging things to their kids — even unintentionally. But their impulse is to do better and make things right.
A toxic parent, however, is
more concerned with their own needs than whether what they’re doing is harmful or damaging. They likely won’t apologize or even admit that what they are doing is wrong. And the abuse or neglect tends to be ongoing or progressive.
Pro says the following:
- Voters first consider that "their" does not even have to indicate ownership, rather association with the people or things previously mentioned or easily identified. Observe this statement: "Students should go to their classes"
The class of the student is part of their timetable. It is an item on their schedule. They have it as an attribute of their daily routine. Thus, it is not at all an example that evades ownership it's just abstract.
They are the ones that the timetable they must follow is attached/belonging to and they possess it.
I am challenging Pro's definition of time anyway, which explains why Pro was not able to understand my argument and to be clear Pro didn't provide any definitions in the debate's description, so it follows that I am entitled to challenge it as it wasn't agreed upon prior to my acceptance of the debate.
Time, as Pro has defined it, is a niche definition to a specific context that benefits Pro's side of the debate. Time is not something you own, it is something that is there for absolutely everything in reality and without any discretion to be sacrificed. Only opportunities that are given up during a period of time can be sacrificed and this is actually what Pro is arguing for.
You have a rather large barrier to victory with the doubts on if time can actually be sacrificed.
As for mixed enjoyment and non-enjoyment... That resembles an investment instead of a sacrifice.
"con had already brought up that many women enjoy raising children making things not clear sacrifices. This leaves a lot of cons case begging the question of why not leave motherhood to the women who enjoy it?"
...
Rangar, this mentions "many women" but I already countered this specific statement, by saying some women enjoy parenting, but you would hardly find anyone who enjoy every aspect of it.
"Also, not everyone enjoys all aspects of raising a child. I doubt any do. It's hard work, but it's necessary." (thats obviouly in my round)
That means by all reason, I have jutified the resolution, and won. The resolution states that some women should sacrifice their time and energy, not all.
I really think it's possible you may be off here.
You're welcome. And very good point about distractions.
I'd concede the 'energy' point sooner if Novice had posted a round 1, I set it up so that there was ample distraction down the energy line to make Novice not realise how deadly the 'time' angle was, which is exactly what happened. Thanks for voting.
For time you could have gained some ground with increased focus on opportunity cost. I don't think you would have won per cee, but you could have made it a lot closer.
I also suggest pre-loading definitions into the description, that way they are pre-agreed (some people will try to change them, but that's usually an obviously bastardly move).
Aiming to get a vote up in time.
3 days remain on this debate, if you cared to vote. ty if you do.
Do you care to vote on this debate? You commented implying interest.
Very good.
I am playing devil's advocate.
"Some women should sacrifice their time and energy for the sake of their childs well being."
Sounds a lot to me like,
"Some men should sacrifice their time and energy for the sake of their childs well being."
If a guy is unwilling to sacrifice for his kids, he's a deadbeat. If a woman is unwilling to sacrifice for her kids, it's viewed as female empowerment.
Kritik is an objection to assumptions made in the prior arg. By def, the instigator’s thesis and opening arg are not kritik.
Watch and learn the art of the K.
Then you have to justify antinatalism. There is currently no incentive or drive for many women to simply just have no children, not mentioning that most women do have children.
Lemme out K Novice
this dude takes kritiking to a new level.
What happens if the women don't have children?
Why women and not parents? Why women and not mothers?
Please accept the debate, if you wish