The user "airmax1227" should be replaced as DART President.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 15,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Topic: The user "airmax1227" should be replaced as DART President.
DEFINITIONS:
airmax1227: A user on DebateArt
replaced: take the place of
DART: DebateArt
President: The elected head of a republic
BURDEN OF PROOF:
BOP is shared
PRO: Must prove that airmax1227 should be replaced with a more suitable candidate for DART President before the December Term.
CON: Must prove that airmax1227 should stay as DART President until the December Term.
RULES:
1. No new arguments are to be made in the final round.
2. Rules are agreed upon and are not to be contested.
3. Sources can be hyperlinked or provided in the comment section.
4. A breach of the rules should result in a conduct point deduction for the offender.
Pro's opening is pretty damning to Airmax. No witnessed attempt at the key campaign promise, no activity.
Con infers we made our bed, so should stick with it, before moving onto a kritik that there shouldn't be a presidency.
While I want to say it was sidetracking to talk about the election getting ugly, it does connect to the presidency itself. Plus the history of the moderators, how they are appointed, and their greater power than the presidency.
In R2 their cases distill: presidency in near it's current form > not presidency near it's current form (and that we should bare the results of how we voted).
While both really seem to care about the site, and think some good can come from the president; they left me I'm left buying that airmax should be removed, but I am not given enough reason to think we are better off immediately appoint anyone else (further, con pointed out the risk of Wylted). Intrinsically, referendums and presidencies are democratic systems, and to disregard the consequences of either seems like a strike against both.
So pro upholds the first half of the resolution (not that it'd be functionally different with him MIA), but misses the second half of the need to appoint someone else.
I think that both sides could use some clarity in terms of what distinguishes one from the other.
Pro's case is that Airmax must be removed and there is a sense of immediacy to that portion of his case, though the timeframe for replacement is unclear. Con makes the case in the final round that there is also a sense of immediacy to his replacement, but even he acknowledges that this is "before the natural end of his term," which means anytime before December. There's something to be said about the need to replace him in order to experience some benefit over a longer period of time resulting from having an active president, so Pro's benefits are reliant on doing it sooner rather than later.
That somewhat complicates what differentiates Con's case from Pro's. He is advocating that we don't get rid of Airmax as president (i.e. he should ride out the term), but that any replacement in an upcoming election should be preceded by either the elimination of the site presidency altogether or some kind of overhaul of the existing system. The latter is really where the differentiation between their cases becomes complicated because both sides acknowledge that there is good reason to change the way the presidency works and both provide opportunities for those changes to take place, albeit Pro gives himself a narrower window during which to make this happen. Con never shows that this window is unworkable, so both sides can achieve solvency on this front.
So what really differentiates the two is Pro's willingness to keep the presidency vs. Con's position of doing away with it entirely, which leaves me with two questions: can a MEEP solve for the problems with the presidency, and if it can, does the presidency afford enough benefits to justify its existence? I don't love that Con chose to continue arguing for a MEEP to address these problems, since doing so is a pretty blatant acknowledgement that a MEEP would suffice as a means to resolve some if not all of these problems. I don't see a clear impediment to solvency for these problems should a MEEP pass along these lines, though Con does make the argument that people tend to vote against their best interests, so the passage of a MEEP is not guaranteed. That being said, the same applies to passing a MEEP that abolishes the presidency, so that is a non-unique argument. As such, it seems that whether the MEEP is an overhaul or abolishes the position, it encounters the same problems and has the same degree of solvency.
So that just leaves whether the position does any good post-overhaul. Both Pro and Con seem to acknowledge that it could do some good. I didn't find Pro's arguments very persuasive on why its current actions are beneficial, mainly because most any user could do those things and the attachment of the word "official" to events hosted by the president haven't shown the kind of uptick in involvement that Pro suggests would happen. All that being said, as a check to moderation, both sides appear to agree that a more empowered presidency would be beneficial, so there is at least an implicit admission by Con that such a system would be better than nothing. Since Pro's is the only system that guarantees the persistence of the presidency, that gives him the edge in this debate. There is the possibility that Pro's system preserves a presidency that is essentially non-functional like the existing one, but since both sides seem to acknowledge that it is more of a do-nothing position than one that does anything harmful, that seems largely identical to eliminating the position altogether. Also, since Con's position also leaves some uncertainty as to the long term existence of the presidency by similarly hanging his hopes on a MEEP (just one with an additional option to eliminate the position), it doesn't really improve anything. This debate might have ended differently if there was a clear harm to the presidency existing as it currently does, instead of just the absence of benefit functioning as the harm. It might also have ended differently if there was a clear harm to ending the Airmax's presidency early, which is largely reduced to a "must enforce the will of the people," which a MEEP would do as well.
As such, I vote Pro.
In a way, it seems that both sides are talking past each other. Pro makes the argument that the current president isn't doing a good job and should be replaced. Con argues that voters should live with the consequences of their decisions, but doesn't show why removing the president would do more harm than good. If anything, impeachment might make problems like this in the future have less consequences. Pro points out that people would be voting to remove the president, so it doesn't undermine democracy as he states. Con argued that "The resolution of this debate is premised upon 'should be replaced' which inherently implies 'now' as we are discussing replacing him with urgency before the natural end of his term," but Pro argued for impeachment and didn't specify how the president should be removed, just that they should be.
Overall, Con doesn't really show that altering the Meep to allow for impeachment would be a bad thing. Pro makes a good case that it would be a simple fix.
Overall no if you mean agreeing with the whole vote.
I agree with why whiteflame voted against me when I was vs benjamin and that is about it.
White flame is probably the only person on the site besides me who almost never votes incorrectly. The one criteria he uses for judging which I think is wrong is in policy debates he considers problems that are increasing say of a rate of 2% a year to be more imminent threats than ones say that happen at a significantly larger number per year. I just think we should focus on solving the bigger current problem, not something that may be a bigger problem in the future..
I'm genuinely curious, has there ever been a vote casted against you which you agreed with?
Thank you Barney for having a solid read of the debate. Thank you Barney for voting competently!
"Friday I've got a Five Finger Death Punch concert, and Saturday is comic con."
Quite the clique shift you experience on the daily.
I've got some paperwork to tackle tonight. But I might try to get a vote in tomorrow.
Friday I've got a Five Finger Death Punch concert, and Saturday is comic con.
It wasn’t unwinnable by any means, though I’ll note that when you present a critique that utilizes a plan that your opponent can permutate and incorporate into their own, you’re setting yourself up for trouble. You might think I’m just being “simple-minded”, but I think it’s pretty self-explanatory. As for tenses, over-reliance on what you viewed as a clear distinction between your positions is not what I would call “creative”.
We must always appreciate that part of debating is knowing the audience. If I had known my audience to be simple-minded and incapable of grasping a creative critique which relies on future vs present scope of presidency replacement, I'd have dodged this debate as it is unwinnable for Con.
Hey, glad you appreciate the vote.
Shame this debate went to trash votes, shame other high.rankers are too chickenshit to lose rating so they pick easy battles 99% of the time.
Should be is present tense, not future tense
Joke of a vote.
Please vote, a lazy voter voted
Fuck off.
I will vote on this, please vote on my debate.
For such a controversial topic, I'm surprised this isn't getting more attention.
tl;dr: bump.
Do consider RM's suggestions if we are to have a reelection.
Not the best conclusion, but adequate.
https://youtu.be/Te3_VlimRw0?t=16
That's a serious devil's advocate.
Definitely not expecting you to debate CON here. Good luck.
I wonder what intelligence level you need to be to think somebody can't debate against what they believe.
You realized you are on CON? I thought you are for this opinion.
what
What?
. ..