Instigator / Pro
3
1495
rating
47
debates
48.94%
won
Topic
#801

organic milk is better for you than non-organic milk

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
3
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
0
1

After 1 vote and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...

RationalMadman
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
7
1697
rating
556
debates
68.17%
won
Description

No information

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Pro sets up a semantic trap debate. Defining all milk as organic. Pro sticks with this throughout.

Con kinda flails here. He starts off with the actually strong argument that there is no such thing as non organic milk - so by default milk can’t be better than it. This should have been the hammer that con beats pros point over the head with.

Instead, con tries to counter with multiple other approaches, “better is arbitrary” - which imo was poorly executed, and is probably better suited to truly arbitrary comparison or scenarios where you can clearly argue multiple beneficial definitions of better. This felt clearly insufficient.

The second is to argue that milk fortification somehow makes it inorganic, the definitional approach could be very strong. Con does this by clearly arguing that this was a trap debate - and as the definitions used were not agreed his is as good as pros.

When I look at the resolution, cons definition seem more relevant and pertinent to the resolution, and as such I have to side with cons definition. Con then spells out how the milk we drink is not organic, but is generally better. This is a reasonable argument - and an argument pro simply dismisses out of hand.

On this alone - I feel con clearly negates the resolution.

However in addition, cons argument that organic milk cant be better than nonexistent milk is very valid. Pros only counter argument is that organic milk is better than nothing - but in my view the resolution is that organic milk is better than non organic milk, not that it is better than nothing.

As a result, I would have awarded con arguments for this too.

As a result of these clear negations: arguments to con.

Conduct: pro sets up a clear attempt at bait and switch, trying to dupe someone into a cheap semantic win using a definition that clear stands outside any reasonable interpretation of the resolution.

Bait and switch semantic debates like this are antithetical to debate - as they aren’t discussion on the merits, and to the debate site a while - where people want to discuss point of views, not engage in shitty definitional battles.

Cons behaviour here is clearly to set up an unfair debate, which in my opinion is a clear violation of good form and conduct that is substantial enough to merit a conduct violation. Pro was as well mannered as one could hope throughout despite this.

As a result of this, conduct goes to con too.