On balance, synthetic diamonds are better than natural diamonds
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Rules
On balance means BoP is shared. Neither side can win by arguing, for instance, that no diamonds are better than either option, or by positing an alternative gem.
Definitions
Synthetic diamond (or lab grown diamond): a diamond synthesized in a lab rather than formed by regular geological processes. This is distinct from diamond imitations such as cubic zirconia.
Diamond: If you don't know what a diamond is, do not accept this debate.
Synthetic diamonds are, on balance, superior to natural diamonds for fulfilling the purposes of diamonds, namely as a fashion accessory and in industrial application.
I will argue that natural diamonds are better than synthetic diamonds at being natural.Since ‘better’ is left undefined in the description, there are no standards to measure it by so I’ll leave it to my own interpretation.
l. ValueThe scarcity of natural diamonds makes it a very rare gem indeed. A special kind, a one of a kind, a limited edition.
The popularity and accessibility to synthetic diamonds makes it easier to appreciate less. Therefore, it cannot be as valuable of a treasure as a natural diamond. So they are in high demand, but short supply.
ll. AuthenticityOne thing you can be sure with natural diamonds is they are 100% organically grown. Therefore, they are a product of Mother Nature’s own creation.
lll. OriginalityKind of goes without saying. Natural diamonds came first. No cheap knock-off, no matter how good can ever live up to the standards of the original.
lV. SentimentalityYou can produce all the synthetically grown diamonds you want. They can possess all the quality in the world, but it shall never compare to the emotional appeal you get from witnessing the imagined divinity and power wielded by a natural gem.
V. PuritySynthetic diamonds are an abomination. With natural diamonds, you can be certain they were never tainted or altered by the touch of greedy businessman wanting to make a quick buck.
Vl. AestheticNatural diamonds have a timeless look to them that is a effortless masterpiece. Synthetic diamonds can’t match this beauty.
Purpose - The reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists.The formation of natural diamonds was not done with an ulterior motive in mind, so there cannot be a purpose.
Synthetic diamonds are, on balance, superior to natural diamonds for fulfilling the uses of diamonds, namely as a fashion accessory and in industrial application.
I don’t see a rule in the description implying I have to abide by this standard when ‘better’ is left ambiguous.
Synthetic diamonds are just as 'one of a kind' as any natural diamond. No two are the same, even if they were made at the same time or cut from the same original piece, as many natural diamonds also are. Con also characterizes natural diamonds as "limited edition," even though limited edition usually refers to a series of identical models of a product made only once.
Con seems to believe that price is equivalent to value. The market price for a natural diamond is higher than that of a synthetic gem, but once you have purchased a ring or other piece set with that gem, even a regular gemologist's tools and skills are insufficient to tell them apart, requiring a specialized lab to distinguish them. [1]
Organic (adj): of, relating to, or derived from living organismsNatural diamonds completely fail to meet this definition. One could even argue that synthetic diamonds meet this definition where natural ones fail, since humans are responsible for the creation of synthetic diamonds, and are themselves living organisms. Perhaps Con meant a different definition.of, relating to, or containing carbon compoundsNow we're getting somewhere, but synthetic diamonds are chemically identical to natural diamonds, being composed almost entirely of carbon, so now both meet the definition. I am forced to conclude that Con is simply wrong.
No argument with the first statement, but the second is false. No one would argue that the Model T Ford is the best mass-produced automobile, with all successors being only pale imitations. As with automobiles, the process of creating synthetic diamonds has improved over time, while natural diamonds have stayed the same.
Ah yes, the emotional appeal of systemic racism and forced labor, how compelling.
Did you do ANY research for this topic? The natural diamond industry is literally built on the back of greed and lies. The De Beers Diamond Consortium (the same people to come up with the slogan "Diamonds are forever") has been the largest diamond supplier for well over a century and is infamous for artificially limiting the supply of diamonds in the market in order to keep prices high.
Once again, even expert gemologists need highly specialized equipment to differentiate natural diamonds from synthetic ones. There is no discernible difference to the naked eye.
Natural diamonds, as a one of a kind, are superior to synthetic diamonds.
I don't recall saying anything about price.
Since none of Pro's definitions match the word in the way that it was used, I suggest we use the correct one.Organic - Characterized by continuous or natural development.
Ah yes, the emotional appeal of systemic racism and forced labor, how compelling.Those are the faults of mankind and the mining industry, not the shortcomings of natural diamonds.Natural diamonds are not sentient beings. So, they lack the capacity to be racist or to force people into labor.
Once a natural diamond had been mined and is used as a store product, it loses its purity and ceases to be a natural diamond.Therefore, synthetic diamonds are the true abomination.
Therefore, synthetic diamonds are the true abomination.
So, Pro implies there ARE differences in the way that they look, but they're just subtle.I don't know what Pro is talking about. If you google pictures of both, natural diamonds look better.
Once again, every synthetic diamond is unique, just as natural diamonds are.
You never said the word, but my argument was that you were conflating the two concepts under the same word.
Pro does not cite a source for this definition, and both of my definitions are correct, whether or not they are applicable in the debate's context.
I was not the one who claimed that natural diamonds possessed "imagined divinity and power." If the historical context of rarity and association with nobility and purity can be applied, then so can the darker side of its past.
- Not all natural diamonds share the same history.
- Systemic racism and forced labor exist independently of natural diamonds.
This is a total non sequitur. Somehow your perception of diamonds losing their "purity" and natural status makes synthetics even worse?
They are literally not visible to the naked eye! Unless you're getting a degree in gemology sometime soon, it will literally never matter. As for your googled pictures, being different, I'm assuming that you're looking at uncut stones, which do tend to form differently. My point on the cut gems being essentially identical stands.
I vote pro.
Pro case is completely dropped by the end of the debate, so I buy that they are better for industry and fashion because they are made for the purpose.
I buy Pro's argument that synthetic diamonds can be made one of a kind because this is never answered by Con. I also buy that price is not tied to value, so being cheaper is good and doesn't affect its value.
I buy that the diamonds are formed through a different process, so the chemical makeup doesn't determine authenticity, and Con's argument that natural diamonds are better at being natural.
The history question is hard for me to answer because I have to ask if Con is making arguments in the last round that they could have fairly been expected to make earlier in the debate so that Pro could have had a chance to answer, as well as if I should weigh it regardless. At best, I buy his arguments, but their only defense, so I just ignore the point, and at worst, I don't grant him access and say the history of diamonds can be applied. I lean towards the latter because an emotional appeal was brought up, Pro called that the appeal of racism and forced labor, Con said that is the fault of humanity, Pro said that if other social constructs can be put on it then history can as well, and then Con said that not all diamonds have that history and that that history isn't exclusive to the diamonds. Those could have reasonably been brought up in Round 2 after Pro first mentioned systemic racism and labor where Pro would have had a fair shot to answer it. I also don't weigh it because this doesn't answer the argument that some natural diamonds are part of that history, and directly ties to the diamond, lowering its "betterness".
I buy that diamonds look the same after the cut, but natural diamonds look better at being natural.
As a conclusion note before comments, I see that synthetic diamonds are better at industry, fashion, cost, and avoiding flawed history and current social issues. I buy that natural diamonds are better at being and looking natural. In order of importance for me, since no debater did this work for me, I weigh avoiding the history as most important, followed by industry, cost, fashion, and looking natural in that order, giving Con only the bottom-ranked position, making my ballot easily go Pro.
Notes for Pro
1. Extend the aff every round through each point. In close rounds, that kind of ethos and visual description of every point you're definitely winning can carry a lot of weight.
2. Better is vague, so you have to need to be telling why the points you are winning are more important than any points that Con might be winning. For example "Industry is the most important because it allows us to mass produce x equipment, which is crucial to saving lives. Saving lives is better than anything else on a prior level." Then, as long as you win the industry, I give you the ballot if Con doesn't question it.
3. Don't bring up all these neutral points in the first round. Either try to spin them into ways synthetic is better or keep these arguments as a defense if Con tries to prove these. Neutrality is not offense and preemptive defense is a waste of time/characters.
Notes for Con
1. You need to rebut the aff. You spot too much offense through their industrial and fashion points that are conceded throughout the entire debate.
2. You're going for "natural diamonds are better at being natural", but I don't know why that's what I should vote on when you're not doing one of two key things you need to do for me to feel comfortable voting here.
A. You need to weigh natural against everything else. A bit of framework to describe natural as the most important aspect could win you the debate. I recommend you look at deep ecology literature or anti-capitalist literature since you said the corporate process corrupts beauty. Both of these provide frameworks that could give you the way to tip the scale so natural is the most important thing on balance. There may be other frameworks, those are just the first two that come to mind.
B. You need to define better in a way that makes the natural debate the most/only important, that way if you win the definition and your point, you win the debate.
3. Your answers to the history point are good, but come way too late in the debate. I know the cross-application happens in speech 3, but you could bring it up in speech 4 to have a direct answer that I would have no hesitation evaluating.
Good round, and if either side has questions or comments, feel free to message, comment, or question me!
Yeah, aff means affirmative and neg means negative. So if I say "extend the aff", that would mean extend the affirmative case.
I wasn't sure what aff means. Is it short for affirmative?
Sure! I don't know a lot about boxing, so if it's not a great decision, I'm sorry.
Sorry, I meant the Pro case. I did debate in high school and do it currently in college and Pro/Con is Aff/Neg in those circles.
aff?
Thank you very much. I'm trying to go through all the debates with little to no votes because I really like judging rounds so that support that I'm not sounding like a dumbass means a lot. If there are any other rounds you have that need votes, I would be happy to weigh in.
Brilliant vote.
Don’t think anyone could have written it any better.
EDIT: That’s not sarcasm btw. I realize it’s hard to tell in text format sometimes.
"Natural diamonds have a timeless look to them that is a effortless masterpiece."
The greedy producers who wanted to grab your wallet don't care about if what they use is natural or artificial. It is just what you believe. And guess what? Since diamonds are mostly carbon, mostly you can't even tell the difference!
What is a diamond?
Without defining better this debate could mean anything.
Natural diamonds are better than lab grown diamonds at being natural diamonds, for instance.
That could be a legitimate argument and I'd win the debate since we never defined better.