No problem. Excellent job in outlining your stipulations. It'll make my job more difficult (as it should be.) But you did leave me some wiggle room. So whenever you're ready, we'll get started.
If you had no burden of proof, why did you provide a counterargument? Why did you provide a case which you then segmented into eight parts? As the contender, it is your contention that his position is either false or unsubstantiated. And even in your interpretation of the resolution, you never gave any context to how your citations informed sexism, discrimination, and/or misogyny.
If you were merely assuming the position of the skeptic, then you needed only to question his argument and its ability to substantiate his point, but instead you offered a case where not only did make assumptions contrary to his argument, "Nevertheless, inequality remains commonplace and examples are easily detected in American society," but you offered citations supposedly to inform these assumptions.
Had you demonstrated how these disparities informed a sexist, misogynistic, or discriminatory element in American society, you would've easily won this debate. Thus, I would take no issue voting in your favor. But since you didn't, and I should remind you that the standard I'm using is informed by your descriptions, it's difficult to vote for any other reason than conduct.
It's a bit difficult to vote on this because neither of you met your burden of proof. While oromagi's argument was organized and quite pleasing aesthetically, oromagi never once related his citations to his descriptions of sexism and misogyny--and that's the whole point. Oromagi cited disparity for disparity's sake, but never explained how this was "unfairly" discriminatory or reflective of "hatred, contempt, or prejudice."
AKmath initially did a fairly decent job in pointing out that the mere disparities have "non-sexist" and "non-misogynistic" explanations, but he never really offered his own argument. Instead, he waived the first round in order to rebut oromagi and forfeited the fourth round. If I were to vote on this, oromagi would edge out because of conduct.
"except i did substantiate the consistent correlation across decades within the debate. The gdp increase typically happened exactly 1 year AFTER min wage rises, and lasted for several years. "
Post hoc.
"Btw both advancing technology and any form of investing often require capital inflows... that would also likely be an accurate and logical correlation."
And that makes it your burden to prevent and/or dispel doubt. Your being unable to control for minimum wage makes it a moot point.
"In comparison, you have not provided any empirical data yourself"
But, I did. I even hyperlinked some of arguments so that the reference can be summoned upon clicking them. Perhaps, you didn't read my arguments in their entirety.
"Cum hoc ergo surely applies in any individual case. But when the correlation repeats itself *consistently* across *decades*, it is a completely different thing."
A different thing you are unable to substantiate. I could take almost anything else and argue the same "correlation" (e.g. capital inflows, advancing technology, human capital investment, etc.) Ultimately, you took two trends, put them together, and assumed they were related.
"There is no moment when minimum wage was isolated. But i did show consistent correlation across decades of its positive effects."
Then don't make arguments that suggest that the minimum wage lead to a boom in the economy epsecially low-skilled workers. Regardless of how you argue this "correlation," it'll fall into the trap of cum hoc ergo propter hoc or post hoc ergo propter hoc.
"I do understand that i failed to reconnect it back to the poor in my quest to respond to every quote."
How was it your quest to respond to every quote, when I had the first rebuttal? Who invoked the irrelevant subject of the industrial revolution? If you wanted to connect your argument to this debate's resolution, you should've done so in the beginning. Neither response, nor order was the reason for your poor argument.
"More spending is obviously good for the poor who need to fix the car, get rid of mold, a new fridge or ac..."
This is the reason you lost our debate. You make claims while failing to either explain or substantiate them. Scrutinize my anecdote all you want, but I clearly lay out the reasoning--soundly rendering conclusions from established premises--as well as lay out the "how's?" and "why's?" You just make statements and expect them to register. You haven't once in our debate considered "how does the minimum wage shore up demand?" "Why does the minimum wage shore up demand?" "Are there any examples that illustrate the minimum wage's effect on demand among a poor consumer base?"
Technicalities weren't the reason you lost; your poor use of reasoning was. Nevertheless, it doesn't matter much now. Good luck in your future debates.
"I showed what happens when the government is hands off and people "negotiated" their own terms. "
No you didn't. You cited a particularized snapshot of history, which I demonstrated was a product of government sanctioned workhouses. This "invisible hand" of which you speak wasn't there.
"Meanwhile my intuitive conclusion that rising wages will increase spending demanded empirical data, which was provided, but was not "empirical enough"."
You provided no data to that effect. Go ahead an look. You had the "intuition." You just didn't have sound reasoning.
"Thus you provided no data to back up the anecdote."
Redundant. I already stated as much. If you're implying that I did not provide quantifiable data that serves as an example of my anecdote, then that implication is categorically false.
I appreciate the vote. I actually had no intention entering this debate of citing quantification of any sort. Economics is a social science. While mathematics can be a useful tool to illustrate examples, it does not "inform" Economics. Economics is reasoning whether it be propositional, "intuitive," tautological, etc. That's the reason my opening argument was constructed in that manner. My intention was not to create a contest over cited "data" but to rigorously challenge the consistency of our reasoning. That perhaps explains the scant data. I provided the data only at the end to soundly refute Nemiroff's claims that without the minimum wage, wages would, as you put it, precipitously fall, and that the minimum wage led to a boom in the economy (boost in GDP) especially among low skilled workers. The rest of the data served as a rebuff to any redundant negation--if the reasoning of the anecdotal evidence didn't sink in, I thought that quantifiable examples would help.
I agree with you about your third point. The mention of the Industrial Revolution and Nemiroff's failure to argue its relevance to the debate's resolution could have been excised without issue. With all that said, your participation was most certainly welcomed, blamonkey, and your RFD was to say the least an interesting read.
"As for the subject of the debate. You being right in a single, super welfare state situation still leaves minimum wage as benefitial in every other situation."
You haven't substantiated this; and you can't substantiate this. But, it's another mere claim.
"That aside, the fact that you had to betray your ideals to support your case shows how strong your actual beliefs are."
We're not debating our "beliefs;" we're debating over that which we can argue and substantiate. If we were discussing beliefs, I wouldn't engage a platform where arguments are subject to vote; not that these votes in and of themselves inform much on our arguments' veracity anyway. All these votes essentially do is tally those who think you or I argued better in service to this debate's resolution.
When you implicated that the minimum wage was necessary to prevent "third world wages," you left your argument open to attack. I simply needed to provide a substantiated counterexample. That's not to state that I believe in the policies of Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Singapore, etc. My beliefs don't matter; the argument matters. If we were arguing over a subject that allowed for more subjectivity, or perhaps a more broad topic, my responses would be different. Because the resolutions would be different.
Your insistence of the notion that I've somehow "betrayed my ideals" or "sold out" is puerile.
"Wanting reviews is not the same as selling out to score points. Do *you* really think we should raise taxes and pump up welfare as an alternative to minimum wage?"
No. But that's not the subject of this debate. This debate is about neither my philosophy nor your philosophy. It's about the argument. When creating these formal debates, I'm obligated to my burden of proof, not my political/economic philosophy. It's not "selling out"; it's focus, something you clearly lack. Otherwise, you wouldn't be throwing this fit of sort at the prospect of your loss.
"Ive already said, in these comments, for people to please leave reviews even outside of the voting period for this exact reason. Ive been upfront since the start."
No you haven't. You complained; denied you complained; then continued to complain--even to the point of insinuating that a vote in my argument's favor was a possible "conspiracy." (Neglecting the fact that another vote was made in my argument's favor, but was dismissed on a "technicality.")
"The only thing you taught me is to be more careful of the technical wording and rules of a debate due to the existence of dishonest people who simply want wins."
You're projecting. This debate was conceived in your attempt to acquire a "win." It makes no difference to me either way. Remember, I'm not the one "hoping" for votes, or going to the thread where this debate was conceived asking for votes. You enjoy your day, too.
"So you wanted me to go on another tangent "demonstrating" common knowledge that you will then blame me for going off topic... are you trolling me?"
As the kids say, "get out of your feelings." I've told you several times that I don't care about how you feel. If I were "trolling" you, I'd have to care. And it's not a tangent. All you had to do was focus on the subject: the minimum wage's being beneficial or not to the poor.
"Existence of alternatives doesnt negate this alternative."
No it doesn't. But it's still up to you to inform its merits since you're arguing in its favor.
"f you want to win based on technicalities, go ahead."
My "wants" don't matter.
"I tried to debate in good faith"
No you didn't. You were trying to win a contest.
"you ignored my invite"
I didn't. By the time I saw it, it was too late to accept. To reciprocate, I challenged you instead.
"then structured these very poorly chosen rules instead."
There's nothing "poorly chosen" about these rules. They're subject to preference.
"Were you hoping just your partner on the min wage thread would be the only vote by setting the minimum amount of time for a 5 round extremely technical debate?"
I do not know Christen very well, much less have the capacity to conspire with him to rig the votes of a debate you yourself suggested. I "hoped" for nothing. Hope is irrelevant.
"Thats sad."
Your feelings once again are irrelevant.
"In america, in our current situation, a min wage is necessary."
You've neither demonstrated nor substantiated this.
"A max welfare state is a valid alternative, but the laissez faire economics you believe in is not."
You've neither demonstrated nor substantiated this.
"Enjoy your technicality win."
Trivializing a loss rather than learning from it will not serve that which you allege you seek. But at this point, it no longer matters.
"That is a pathetic technicality. We may as well be arguing that people need to eat food to live and you say "they dont need food when they are full".
If they are already paid a living wage, or gov takes care of them then obviously they are full and ok. When they are not full on adequate wages, they need a minumum wage."
That's not a technicality; it's not the argument. When you argue that people need apples for nutrition, then it is your fault, and your fault alone, that you do not consider alternatives.
"Out of 1st world nations, which nations are MOST socialist... the nations you used for your no minimum wage (a form of government regulation) examples."
"Min wage is needed when people are underpaid.
Min wage is not needed when people make a living wage. Or when the governmeny handles most of their living expenses."
That doesn't matter. Look at the title of this debate. Is it, "Minimum Wage is needed when people are underpaid"? Is it, "Is Minimum Wage law needed when people make a living wage?" Or "the effect of minimum wage when government handles living expenses"? No. The debate we were having was "The Minimum Wage Is Beneficial to the Poor." Take a minute to grasp what that means.
but I was also able to demonstrate with references a counterfactual that minimum wage increases were associated with decreases in productivity among low skilled workers.
"he didnt establish at all his BoP of how min wage harms the poor considering almost no new jobs will be created with a lower wage..."
I most certainly did. With the use of economic reasoning, anecdotal evidence, as well as empirical evidence, I was able to substantiate all of my points. Your concept of a "rebuttal" is to merely "state" that I'm wrong, rather than "demonstrate" that I'm wrong. Furthermore, my argument has never been that the minimum wage "harms" the poor. My argument is that the minimum wage IS NOT beneficial the poor. My language always reflects the onus demanded.
"I made several economic arguments regarding supply and demand"
You made no arguments about supply, and just one argument about demand, albeit uninformed.
"I said they are the *most* socialist out of the *1st world nations*."
No, you said they were the "most socialist first world nations," which is tantamount to categorizing them as socialist.
"They dont have a minimum wage because their citizens are already paid a living wage. And if anyone is underpaid the government takes care of them with welfare policies."
None of that matters. You've being arguing against a strawman this entire time. No one is arguing socialist policies vs free-market policies; or welfare and entitlements. We were arguing the minimum-wage and the minimum wage alone. You lost focus of that (and I honestly don't know whether you had any from the start) and decided to pedal uninformed economic platitudes.
"My opponents only argument is the wage floor pricing out workers"
That is not true. My arguments were listed in round one.
"yet my lowest unemployment argument is completely ignored."
Not ignored; rebutted.
"(Unemployment obviously not counting many people, mostly children, elderly which are a giant chunk of our population, + handicapped/injured)."
You haven't substantiated that at all; you merely claimed it.
"Even if he refuted my BoP, which he didnt,"
Yes, I did. Quite decisively, actually. Only two of your arguments can be related to the topic: "minimum wage lead to a boom for the american economy and especially unskilled workers..." and "By raising the min wage, people are able to afford biscuits. That shores up demand and creates an opportunity for the business to make profit by satisfying that demand..." You weren't able to substantiate either of these arguments; instead, you complained how it was impossible for one to control for the minimum wage and it's relation to GDP growth, yet had no concern issuing arguments which implicated the impossible. Not only was I able to counterargue this by highlighting the issues with causality... (to be continued)
@Christen: I saw your RFD through my mobile device beforehand, so all is well with that link. It wasn't until I logged in with my computer that I noticed the error with the first link.
@bmdrocks21: Does having no debates place limitations on voting? My first and only vote was done with no debates under my belt either, so I'm fairly certain what Harleygator did wasn't against the rules. (Maybe it was for debate.org) Perhaps check, first?
@Harleygator: Your vote is appreciated. I'm acknowledging your vote in particular because your analysis is fairly accurate. That is, my anecdote was intended to be explanatory not a reference to circumstance; the emotional language frequently invoked by my opponent; the issues with causality when attempting to correlate the minimum-wage and GDP growth, etc. Good eyes.
@Christen: Your first link leads to an RFD for the prospect of Donald Trump's impeachment; the second link can only be viewed by mobile devices. Your vote is appreciate as well. However, this error may present difficulties--i.e. vote deletion. Just a heads up.
I would agree to some extent. If I had an error, it was in creating a character limit that wasn’t commensurate to the time allotted for arguments or voting period. 30,000 is excessive. I don’t think anyone has come close to the limit. I think I went as high as fourteen thousand, where most of it were quotes and citations. Duly noted, bmdrocks.
"It's a nice calculation, but it misses the reality of peoples lives and priorities."
I actually addressed that right after the statement you quoted:
"Of course, I don't expect anyone to spend 80 hours focused on a single debate given other priorities (family, friends, homework, recreation, etc.) But even if you were to spend an eighth of that remaining time, that would still be 10 hours..."
Believe me, I understand. But the voting period wasn't set with any particular voter(s) in mind. Whoever wants to participate can participate. And it doesn't necessarily have to be a vote; it can be commentary as well. I'd be interested to see what takes others had on the subject.
1. One time reminder of your forfeit. Every mention of forfeit thereafter was in response to that fictional narrative of shaming, which you were clearly using to overcompensate for said forfeit.
2. There were no quotes taken out of context on my part. Every parsing was related back to your assertion that the legislation after the Industrial Revolution was meant to "equalize" or "balance" the "power" between employer and employee.
3. I asked for a citation for worker conditions BEFORE, DURING, and AFTER the Industrial Revolutions. You provided only one for during. (That was your first error.) You were the one who initially invoked the reference to the Industrial Revolutions with little to no focus on the minimum wage (that was your second error.) Any reference to the Industrial Revolutions and its relevance to the minimum-wage is your responsibility (that was your third error.) Even if you're claiming that I conspired in some "nefarious" plot to goad you into addressing an irrelevant tangent, as I've stated before, it would still be your responsibility to know which arguments are relevant to your position. If the roles were reversed, and you decided to ask for a citation or reference for my classroom anecdote, which would later be deemed irrelevant, then that would be my responsibility. The difference is, my arguments remained focused while yours didn't. You were more concerned with scrutinizing the free-market, rather than the subject over which we argued as evidenced many times throughout the debate. You were not "shamed" or "deceived." And most if not all of your "concerns" have no relevance to the substance of our debate.
For which error am I at fault? "Shaming" you? That's fiction. The time periods? You're not complaining about that, and assumed responsibility for your obliviousness, right? So that can't be it. Was it the burdens of proof? You said you were open to "going my way" so that must not be it either. Where was my error?
1. I did ask for the reason for your forfeit; and you did mention that you were oblivious to the time limit. Whose fault was that? A full round had passed before your forfeit. You were able to manage a submission on time before; if you didn't read the description of the debate beforehand, then your discomfort was on you.
2. Yes, it was a courtesy and formality (as an authority on my own intentions, I outrank you.) And if you noticed--perhaps you didn't--the voting standard is "Winner Selection." There are NO conduct points. (Though, I can't really dictate the standards voters use at their discretion.) It's not necessary to handicap you by deductions in conduct, spelling, or even sourcing to provide a superior argument. Second, I always point out the forfeit in bold letters after the forfeit. (Look at every one of my debates.) If I continued to do this, then you would've had a point. I only continued to point out your forfeit because it was clear to me that you were using this "shaming" narrative you fictionalized to overcompensate for your forfeit. Hence, you sought to point out some "poor conduct," on my part using said narrative. As I said before, "nice try."
3. Blame is not the same as "shame." And your "shame" doesn't make you any less responsible for your arguments as well as your burden of proof. But this is rather nonsensical and irrelevant. I will indulge it no more.
4. It wasn't your burden to argue for "common sense regulations." It was your burden to argue for the "minimum wage." And the only arguments you made to that effect were easily refuted (i.e. in their absence, first world country cannot sustain themselves with third world wages, and the minimum wage boosted GDP.)
Second, let me repeat: I don't care how or what you feel; even less so, I'm not the slightest bit concerned about how or what I feel. Once again, it's all irrelevant.
5. I addressed every one of your statements however much beleaguered they were.
I'll admit that it probably would've been prudent to extend the voting period. But my concern is not the convenience of prospective voters, however big they may be. I still don't see how a week is too short. Even if one were to deduct the average 40 hour work/school week and 40 hour sleep schedule, one would still have more than three full days. Of course, I don't expect anyone to spend 80 hours focused on a single debate given other priorities (family, friends, homework, recreation, etc.) But even if you were to spend an eighth of that remaining time, that would still be 10 hours, which is far more than a sufficient amount of time to read the arguments of all five rounds (especially given that the opening arguments were rather short, and the third round consisted of a forfeit and an extension of argument) the sources provided, and render a judgement.
If this debate interests you, and you want to participate by voting, then do so. If it doesn't, then don't. However, your concerns haven't fallen on deaf ears. I may consider extending the voting periods to two weeks in future debates.
1. You communicated no complaints about the time allotted until after Christen mentioned it. You had no reservations about communicating your concerns about the format, as evidenced below. Only after your forfeit did it become a concern, given that you managed to submit arguments on time for four out of the five rounds.
2. My "asking" the audience, and prospective voters for leeway was clearly a courtesy and formality. Hence, it was a statement and not a question. (Who's to say that anyone would've responded even if I "asked" a round before.) It's confusing that you'd bring it up.
3. I don't care about what or how you feel. That means I don't care enough about you to attempt to solicit any emotion from you, including shame. My actions are in service to debate. Since you invoked the language of "shame," it's obvious that you felt shamed. You must assume responsibility for that. Furthermore, how you feel, how I feel, how anyone else "feels" is irrelevant. So once again, let's dispense with the sophistry.
4. In this entire debate, you kept a tenuous focus on the subject at hand. We were not debating Socialism vs Capitalism; we were not debating Government Intervention vs Government Non-intervention. We were debating the Minimum Wage and its alleged benefit to the poor as the title suggests. It doesn't matter that the countries I listed are socialist as you claim. The other programs they have in place don't matter. The only aspects which matter are that of the minimum wage. And I cited six countries without a minimum wage which are considered first world, completely refuting your point.
5. And it's not lost on me, that in the final round of this debate, you did not address the refutation of your claim that minimum-wage boosted GDP. That is, the minimum wage was shown to demonstrate 1-2% decrease in low-skilled worker productivity for every 10% increase in the minimum wage.
The reasons I chose to have a relatively shorter amount of time allotted between arguments were: (1) it's been my experience that most people who debated with me have forfeited at some point, so to hedge against prolonged periods of waiting for the debate to end, I ensured that this debate would undoubtedly end in at most fifteen days, and (2) 10 weeks (one week for each of the five rounds afforded to each debater) is an absurdly lengthy amount to have a discussion about the benefits of the minimum wage. Since Nemiroff and I were already discussing the topic in the forums, as well as outlining some particulars through private messaging, I didn't see a need for anything more than three days.
As for the voting period, I assume that those who would take an interest in voting normally follow the debate as it's happening, and not stumble across it weeks after the fact, and submit a vote in order to boost a stat. It's my way of screening prospective voters. The time shouldn't be a problem if one were following the arguments somewhat regularly. I've used this method in almost every debate I've started and I have yet to discover any drawbacks.
The subject is the same: "The Minimum Wage Is Beneficial to the Poor." It's just that our arguments supporting our respective theses will be different. And this subject as titled requires two different theses: one which affirms the proposition, and one which negates it. Unlike the forum, formal debates require more structure (formats, stipulations, definitions, etc.)
Now that our opening arguments are out of the way, you can challenge my reasoning, and I can challenge yours. The resolution of this debate is ultimately and primarily "does the minimum wage benefit the poor?" not "can Athias find a cheaper method for cleaning his blackboard?" or "Is Nemiroff right about the second Industrial Revolution?" As long as the arguments inform the effect of the minimum wage, then there's nothing about which to worry. Not to mention, we have four more rounds, and a 30,000 character limit. So whatever needs to be addressed can be addressed.
The burden of proof is assigned to the argument which affirms a claim. Your claim is "p" -- the minimum wage is beneficial to the poor; my claim is "q" -- the minimum wage is not beneficial to the poor. It just so happens that my argument "q" is the negation of your argument p. It's being "positive" or "negative" has no relevance. I have just as much a burden to substantiate my claim as you do yours. If we were to follow your format, and have you defend your position while I simply probe, then the resolution to this debate would be "Can Nemiroff defend the Minimum Wage?" as oppose to "The Minimum Wage Is/Isn't Beneficial to the Poor." I cannot use your failure to defend your position as information for my position less I risk arguing from ignorance, a logical fallacy; thus, your format would be in fact the less effective method. You may not be used to arguing this way, but it is a sound method.
Round One: Opening Arguments (I provide my thesis and argument; you provide your thesis and argument.)
Round Two: Rebuttals (Defend/Supplement theses and arguments; rebut opponents thesis and argument.)
Rounds Three & Four: Rebuttals/Rejoinders (Defend theses and arguments; rebut opponents thesis and argument; rebut rebuttals.)
Round Five: Closing Arguments (Reaffirm theses and arguments; summation.)
It's not difficult at all. As long as you keep focus on the resolution, the format should be easily to follow (and in my experience is quite helpful.)
First, your definition is a bit of an ad lib as the citation states, "to have real being, whether material or spiritual"; if you operate on this definition, then you'll lose this debate in an expedient fashion. A competent debater will use it against you. (So I recommend you edit your description for your own benefit.) If after some time, no one else accepts, I'll consider accepting your challenge.
I would make them a single week. Anime debates especially are more for the purposes of entertainment, and I don't think any prospective voter would want to wait an entire month to see the result of their vote, discouraging them from voting early. Furthermore, as you've suggested, the extended periods make the debate prone to ending up on the bottom of the pile especially in juxtaposition to other debates that have voting periods of just a single week. Furthermore, I believe that shortening the voting period would also attract more prospective opponents to any anime debate, which are scarce to begin with, you conceive.
"Athias, did you get my comment about the reason why I always make the voting period one month? Hopefully you understand."
Yes, I did. I think a month is overkill, but you started the debate, so it's your prerogative.
"Athias - I do get what you are saying but you must understand everyone has a different perception. It's not that serious. Please have good sportsmanship because the behavior being displayed from you does not show professionalism, it just shows pouting and saltiness. Knocks off respect points on your end. There's something I disagree with whiteflame as well but I'm not going to sit up here and go back and forth with him as it is his opinion. It's just an anime debate, not everyone has seen the same series as us, such as MHA, Death note, OPM or HxH. It can't be helped. If this was a serious debate about worldly issues and reality, then a back and forth this long would be warranted."
I don't disagree with the vote per se, I disagree with the reasoning. The reasoning for Basilisk and Basilisk alone stuck out like a sore thumb, so I addressed it. As I told whiteflame, a consistent score/vote is better than an inconsistent one, even if that meant the other series, including my own, would have gotten lower scores. And I take all debates seriously; if I simply intended to talk about this casually, then I would've suggested we move this discussion to the forums.
@whiteflame:
"For what it's worth, I don't think this is about whether Athias won or lost. I understand his frustration because I understand what he thinks I did and how it could have affected my perception of a particular scene. He saw aspects of my vote that gave him the impression that I applied a different standard to the Basilisk fight and wants me to own the perceived error, so this is more about standing on principle than standing in opposition to my vote."
"However, to be clear, if I took context out of the picture, it’s your score that would suffer the most. My vote would not change, even if the scores would."
I've already acknowledged that possibility. My contention isn't that you voted in favor of King_8's choices. My contention is that your reasoning for Basilisk, and Basilisk alone, was inconsistent. A consistent vote is better than an inconsistent one, even if it meant that my other choices would also have gotten a "5" (e.g. Death Note, My Hero Academia, etc.) And it's not a different perception. You, yourself, entertained the possibility that your not watching the series may have informed your understanding of the context. (I even quoted you verbatim.) This context you're looking for in Basilisk isn't present in the other clips, with the exception of just a few. I know this because I've watched every series mentioned in this debate in their entirety with the exceeption of One Piece, which I gave up on a long time ago. So I know the scene between Netero vs Meruem does not have this context of which you speak; I know that the scene between Saitama vs Boros doesn't have this context of which you speak; I know that the scene between Light and L doesn't have this context of which you speak; I know the fight between Kirei and Kiritsugu doesn't have this context of which you speak; I've watched them. Any substantive character motivation or background woudn't have been made available to you by watching those scenes alone, even if you had watched them in their entirety. But rather than holding yourself responsible for the incomplete context your lack of watching informed, you instead obligated the scene and selection to do this. If you don't agree with this conclusion, that's fine as well. This discussion obviously has no bearing on your vote since it's already been cast. Think of this as an exercise in plot analysis.
So, for example, had you given a score commensurate to the others, or for example, grading the scenes, even my own, much lower because they in and of themselves had just as much or not enough context either, I wouldn't have been vexed. Because your rationale would've been consistent. I may have still lost your vote regardless.
My issue isn't that you had an opinion. My issue is this opinion is applied inconsistently. Knowing that you haven't watched the series, the demand or requirement for contextual explanation ought to have been somewhat tempered. To the contrary, you held your lack of watching the series against the scene, instead requiring that it made episodes of build-up clear in the submitted clip. That would be fine, but did the clips of One Punch Man do this? Hunter x Hunter? Death Note? (These questions are rhetorical, I know that they don't.) Not even the scenes in their entirety give context to episodes of build up, so then what is the one difference between Basilisk and the other series? You haven't watched it. Instead you characterized it as a poor selection because of a context which could've been obtained by watching the previous episodes. So the question then becomes: how much context do you require? I explained several aspects of just the scene alone that one could've objectively used to create a picture of what's going on. In other words, context. If however, you were looking for a bit more in-depth character analysis in a single scene, that would be a bit much, an amount I'm fairly confident the other clips/scenes haven't done.
I'm not saying you should've lied. I'm saying that you should have considered more introspectively. "To what or whom does the responsibility of my not watching Basilisk belong?" The scene? The selection? Or yourself? You entertained the third as a possibility, but you essentially placed it on the former two; thus, your frequent mention that it went beyond the scope of the debate to "expect" you to do research despite your being the one to demand context. And this is only exacerbated by the fact that: (1) I didn't know you would vote beforehand, and (2) I didn't know you would participate having not seen the show.
Then when you watch the other clips and ascertain that this context is either just as limited, or perhaps more so, then yeah, I will question your consistency. Why was Oboro's motivations being clear necessary? Why did the presence of the other characters not pay off (if this had no discernible context, why would that have any sort of meaning either way?) You admitted/presumed correctly that there was some build up over the previous episodes of which you did not know (instead requiring the scene selected to make the extent of this building up clear.) When you really think about it, you are the variable: you watch the series, you understand; you don't watch the series, you don't understand.
"Look, if you don't like my reasons, that's your prerogative."
I don't dislike your reasons; I'm vexed by the inconsistency.
"and you can either choose to believe that or choose to conclude that someone who went through a great deal of effort and consideration with all of these choices (more so with the Basilisk fight because I spent quite a bit longer analyzing it) is being dismissive of the fight's strengths solely because he hasn't watched the series."
It's not really a matter of belief; it's your statements that inform my conclusion:
"This one’s the hardest to judge because I have no context for it (haven’t seen Basilisk). I’d say it probably wasn’t the best choice because it seems to build from some really integral relationships built up over the past 8 episodes. 'Maybe it’s just because I have seen the others,' but I don’t think any of them required a build up or understanding of the series of events as much as this does."
and
"(harder to do with Kiritisugu and Kirei, but hey, that's Fate Zero for you)."
Context with others is conveniently available to you because you already watched the series. You admit that Fate/Zero doesn't give much context "but hey, that's Fate Zero for you." It's not like I'm making this up as I go. I'm reading your statement, and deducing your logic.
"You may want someone who is willing to judge these fights on a more basic level or someone who has watched all these series and has extensive knowledge of the context behind each of these fights. Sorry, I can't do either of those things, and I tried to be relatively fair in leaving out much of the context behind these fights and focusing on the information I was presented."
I want someone to judge these fights consistently. When you mention this demand for contextual explanation for Basilisk alone, coupled with your mention of not watching the series, it's not unreasonable to relate the two.
If the fight itself didn't impress you, then it didn't impress you. (There's no shame in it being that simple of a reason.) I'm scrutinizing your judgement based on the standards you've claimed you've used here. I'm stating that this "context" you've claimed is absent in Basilisk isn't really present in many of the other clips provided including some of my own. To have a grasp for Boros's motivations, for example, you would've had to have watched the entire episode and some of the previous episode; to understand Saitama's motivations you would've had to have watched a few more episodes, the very thing for which you penalized Basilisk (i.e. the satire, the hero association, the rankings, the irony that Saitama, then a Class C Hero, was the one who defeated Boros, etc.) And let's face it, reading succinct character summaries isn't as compelling as watching the content, which unfortunately for Basilisk, the other series had that luxury. There's no immersion; there's no relation.
I'm concluding that your judgement is mostly (if not entirely) influenced by your not watching the series, and you admit almost as much when giving your initial reason. And many of your criticisms are derivative of your not watching it. And Basilisk, even in that short scene gives more context than many of the other clips (probably with Goku vs Frieza and Kakashi vs Obito being among the few (if not only) exceptions.)
You're essentially holding the Basilisk scene responsible for your not watching the series. And given the nature of this debate, King_8 and I were allowed to select among hundreds of different anime. Not to mention, I've never conversed with you before the fact, so there's no way for me to know which anime you have seen. Not every scene gives you the entire picture, and if you're going to hold that against Basilisk, that's fine. But then the same can be said for Saitama vs Boros; Netero vs Meruem; All Might vs All For One; Kirei vs Kiritsugu; Light vs L, etc. Most of these clips don't give the entire picture.
I know that this is entirely subjective; my concern is the consistency. And you're not being genuine about Saitama vs Boros. Based on the clip alone, there was no mention of "looking for someone powerful enough to challenge," not even anything close to it. You had to have seen a longer version, meaning you did your own research outside of the selected clips, or had to have seen the series/episode already to form your judgement. There's no way to grasp any of that which you stated if someone were watching that clip with a fresh pair of eyes (and I know this personally because before I watched One Punch Man, this scene was shown to me, and I didn't think much of it then.) My point is, if you were going to judge the fights superficially, then judge them superficially. If background information, motivations, and contexts need to be conveyed during the fight, then that standard ought to be applied to all, no? Even in my recommended four and half watch of Basilisk, there's a lot more information and context conveyed than that clip of Saitama vs Boros. The difference is that you've seen One Punch Man, and you haven't seen Basilisk.
And I find it hard to believe that you couldn't glean Oboro's motivations, if not from watching that scene, then reading her wikipedia description. In the first three lines of her description in both the fandom wiki and wikipedia, it states that she's the leader of the Iga Clan and she's engaged to Gennosuke Kouga. So how far did you read? Kirei vs Kiritsugu also contained a lot of subtext, especially since there was no dialogue in that scene. What was the difference? You saw Fate/Zero.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Roman_Catholicism
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Church
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Latin_Church
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Christian#Noun
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Luciferianism
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Lucifer
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Bible
Interesting approach. I'll prepare my argument.
Define sexual intercourse.
No problem. Excellent job in outlining your stipulations. It'll make my job more difficult (as it should be.) But you did leave me some wiggle room. So whenever you're ready, we'll get started.
If you had no burden of proof, why did you provide a counterargument? Why did you provide a case which you then segmented into eight parts? As the contender, it is your contention that his position is either false or unsubstantiated. And even in your interpretation of the resolution, you never gave any context to how your citations informed sexism, discrimination, and/or misogyny.
If you were merely assuming the position of the skeptic, then you needed only to question his argument and its ability to substantiate his point, but instead you offered a case where not only did make assumptions contrary to his argument, "Nevertheless, inequality remains commonplace and examples are easily detected in American society," but you offered citations supposedly to inform these assumptions.
Had you demonstrated how these disparities informed a sexist, misogynistic, or discriminatory element in American society, you would've easily won this debate. Thus, I would take no issue voting in your favor. But since you didn't, and I should remind you that the standard I'm using is informed by your descriptions, it's difficult to vote for any other reason than conduct.
It's a bit difficult to vote on this because neither of you met your burden of proof. While oromagi's argument was organized and quite pleasing aesthetically, oromagi never once related his citations to his descriptions of sexism and misogyny--and that's the whole point. Oromagi cited disparity for disparity's sake, but never explained how this was "unfairly" discriminatory or reflective of "hatred, contempt, or prejudice."
AKmath initially did a fairly decent job in pointing out that the mere disparities have "non-sexist" and "non-misogynistic" explanations, but he never really offered his own argument. Instead, he waived the first round in order to rebut oromagi and forfeited the fourth round. If I were to vote on this, oromagi would edge out because of conduct.
"except i did substantiate the consistent correlation across decades within the debate. The gdp increase typically happened exactly 1 year AFTER min wage rises, and lasted for several years. "
Post hoc.
"Btw both advancing technology and any form of investing often require capital inflows... that would also likely be an accurate and logical correlation."
And that makes it your burden to prevent and/or dispel doubt. Your being unable to control for minimum wage makes it a moot point.
"In comparison, you have not provided any empirical data yourself"
But, I did. I even hyperlinked some of arguments so that the reference can be summoned upon clicking them. Perhaps, you didn't read my arguments in their entirety.
"Cum hoc ergo surely applies in any individual case. But when the correlation repeats itself *consistently* across *decades*, it is a completely different thing."
A different thing you are unable to substantiate. I could take almost anything else and argue the same "correlation" (e.g. capital inflows, advancing technology, human capital investment, etc.) Ultimately, you took two trends, put them together, and assumed they were related.
"There is no moment when minimum wage was isolated. But i did show consistent correlation across decades of its positive effects."
Then don't make arguments that suggest that the minimum wage lead to a boom in the economy epsecially low-skilled workers. Regardless of how you argue this "correlation," it'll fall into the trap of cum hoc ergo propter hoc or post hoc ergo propter hoc.
"I do understand that i failed to reconnect it back to the poor in my quest to respond to every quote."
How was it your quest to respond to every quote, when I had the first rebuttal? Who invoked the irrelevant subject of the industrial revolution? If you wanted to connect your argument to this debate's resolution, you should've done so in the beginning. Neither response, nor order was the reason for your poor argument.
"More spending is obviously good for the poor who need to fix the car, get rid of mold, a new fridge or ac..."
This is the reason you lost our debate. You make claims while failing to either explain or substantiate them. Scrutinize my anecdote all you want, but I clearly lay out the reasoning--soundly rendering conclusions from established premises--as well as lay out the "how's?" and "why's?" You just make statements and expect them to register. You haven't once in our debate considered "how does the minimum wage shore up demand?" "Why does the minimum wage shore up demand?" "Are there any examples that illustrate the minimum wage's effect on demand among a poor consumer base?"
Technicalities weren't the reason you lost; your poor use of reasoning was. Nevertheless, it doesn't matter much now. Good luck in your future debates.
"The relevancy was clearly stated."
Where?
"I showed what happens when the government is hands off and people "negotiated" their own terms. "
No you didn't. You cited a particularized snapshot of history, which I demonstrated was a product of government sanctioned workhouses. This "invisible hand" of which you speak wasn't there.
"Meanwhile my intuitive conclusion that rising wages will increase spending demanded empirical data, which was provided, but was not "empirical enough"."
You provided no data to that effect. Go ahead an look. You had the "intuition." You just didn't have sound reasoning.
"Thus you provided no data to back up the anecdote."
Redundant. I already stated as much. If you're implying that I did not provide quantifiable data that serves as an example of my anecdote, then that implication is categorically false.
I appreciate the vote. I actually had no intention entering this debate of citing quantification of any sort. Economics is a social science. While mathematics can be a useful tool to illustrate examples, it does not "inform" Economics. Economics is reasoning whether it be propositional, "intuitive," tautological, etc. That's the reason my opening argument was constructed in that manner. My intention was not to create a contest over cited "data" but to rigorously challenge the consistency of our reasoning. That perhaps explains the scant data. I provided the data only at the end to soundly refute Nemiroff's claims that without the minimum wage, wages would, as you put it, precipitously fall, and that the minimum wage led to a boom in the economy (boost in GDP) especially among low skilled workers. The rest of the data served as a rebuff to any redundant negation--if the reasoning of the anecdotal evidence didn't sink in, I thought that quantifiable examples would help.
I agree with you about your third point. The mention of the Industrial Revolution and Nemiroff's failure to argue its relevance to the debate's resolution could have been excised without issue. With all that said, your participation was most certainly welcomed, blamonkey, and your RFD was to say the least an interesting read.
"As for the subject of the debate. You being right in a single, super welfare state situation still leaves minimum wage as benefitial in every other situation."
You haven't substantiated this; and you can't substantiate this. But, it's another mere claim.
"That aside, the fact that you had to betray your ideals to support your case shows how strong your actual beliefs are."
We're not debating our "beliefs;" we're debating over that which we can argue and substantiate. If we were discussing beliefs, I wouldn't engage a platform where arguments are subject to vote; not that these votes in and of themselves inform much on our arguments' veracity anyway. All these votes essentially do is tally those who think you or I argued better in service to this debate's resolution.
When you implicated that the minimum wage was necessary to prevent "third world wages," you left your argument open to attack. I simply needed to provide a substantiated counterexample. That's not to state that I believe in the policies of Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Singapore, etc. My beliefs don't matter; the argument matters. If we were arguing over a subject that allowed for more subjectivity, or perhaps a more broad topic, my responses would be different. Because the resolutions would be different.
Your insistence of the notion that I've somehow "betrayed my ideals" or "sold out" is puerile.
"Wanting reviews is not the same as selling out to score points. Do *you* really think we should raise taxes and pump up welfare as an alternative to minimum wage?"
No. But that's not the subject of this debate. This debate is about neither my philosophy nor your philosophy. It's about the argument. When creating these formal debates, I'm obligated to my burden of proof, not my political/economic philosophy. It's not "selling out"; it's focus, something you clearly lack. Otherwise, you wouldn't be throwing this fit of sort at the prospect of your loss.
"Ive already said, in these comments, for people to please leave reviews even outside of the voting period for this exact reason. Ive been upfront since the start."
No you haven't. You complained; denied you complained; then continued to complain--even to the point of insinuating that a vote in my argument's favor was a possible "conspiracy." (Neglecting the fact that another vote was made in my argument's favor, but was dismissed on a "technicality.")
"The only thing you taught me is to be more careful of the technical wording and rules of a debate due to the existence of dishonest people who simply want wins."
You're projecting. This debate was conceived in your attempt to acquire a "win." It makes no difference to me either way. Remember, I'm not the one "hoping" for votes, or going to the thread where this debate was conceived asking for votes. You enjoy your day, too.
"That is, if you win. Im still hoping for more voters."
That much is clear.
"So you wanted me to go on another tangent "demonstrating" common knowledge that you will then blame me for going off topic... are you trolling me?"
As the kids say, "get out of your feelings." I've told you several times that I don't care about how you feel. If I were "trolling" you, I'd have to care. And it's not a tangent. All you had to do was focus on the subject: the minimum wage's being beneficial or not to the poor.
"Existence of alternatives doesnt negate this alternative."
No it doesn't. But it's still up to you to inform its merits since you're arguing in its favor.
"f you want to win based on technicalities, go ahead."
My "wants" don't matter.
"I tried to debate in good faith"
No you didn't. You were trying to win a contest.
"you ignored my invite"
I didn't. By the time I saw it, it was too late to accept. To reciprocate, I challenged you instead.
"then structured these very poorly chosen rules instead."
There's nothing "poorly chosen" about these rules. They're subject to preference.
"Were you hoping just your partner on the min wage thread would be the only vote by setting the minimum amount of time for a 5 round extremely technical debate?"
I do not know Christen very well, much less have the capacity to conspire with him to rig the votes of a debate you yourself suggested. I "hoped" for nothing. Hope is irrelevant.
"Thats sad."
Your feelings once again are irrelevant.
"In america, in our current situation, a min wage is necessary."
You've neither demonstrated nor substantiated this.
"A max welfare state is a valid alternative, but the laissez faire economics you believe in is not."
You've neither demonstrated nor substantiated this.
"Enjoy your technicality win."
Trivializing a loss rather than learning from it will not serve that which you allege you seek. But at this point, it no longer matters.
"That is a pathetic technicality. We may as well be arguing that people need to eat food to live and you say "they dont need food when they are full".
If they are already paid a living wage, or gov takes care of them then obviously they are full and ok. When they are not full on adequate wages, they need a minumum wage."
That's not a technicality; it's not the argument. When you argue that people need apples for nutrition, then it is your fault, and your fault alone, that you do not consider alternatives.
"Out of 1st world nations, which nations are MOST socialist... the nations you used for your no minimum wage (a form of government regulation) examples."
Don't just state; demonstrate.
"Min wage is needed when people are underpaid.
Min wage is not needed when people make a living wage. Or when the governmeny handles most of their living expenses."
That doesn't matter. Look at the title of this debate. Is it, "Minimum Wage is needed when people are underpaid"? Is it, "Is Minimum Wage law needed when people make a living wage?" Or "the effect of minimum wage when government handles living expenses"? No. The debate we were having was "The Minimum Wage Is Beneficial to the Poor." Take a minute to grasp what that means.
but I was also able to demonstrate with references a counterfactual that minimum wage increases were associated with decreases in productivity among low skilled workers.
"he didnt establish at all his BoP of how min wage harms the poor considering almost no new jobs will be created with a lower wage..."
I most certainly did. With the use of economic reasoning, anecdotal evidence, as well as empirical evidence, I was able to substantiate all of my points. Your concept of a "rebuttal" is to merely "state" that I'm wrong, rather than "demonstrate" that I'm wrong. Furthermore, my argument has never been that the minimum wage "harms" the poor. My argument is that the minimum wage IS NOT beneficial the poor. My language always reflects the onus demanded.
"I made several economic arguments regarding supply and demand"
You made no arguments about supply, and just one argument about demand, albeit uninformed.
"which is an actual economic policy,"
No, it's not.
"I didnt call those nations socialist."
Yes you did.
"I said they are the *most* socialist out of the *1st world nations*."
No, you said they were the "most socialist first world nations," which is tantamount to categorizing them as socialist.
"They dont have a minimum wage because their citizens are already paid a living wage. And if anyone is underpaid the government takes care of them with welfare policies."
None of that matters. You've being arguing against a strawman this entire time. No one is arguing socialist policies vs free-market policies; or welfare and entitlements. We were arguing the minimum-wage and the minimum wage alone. You lost focus of that (and I honestly don't know whether you had any from the start) and decided to pedal uninformed economic platitudes.
"My opponents only argument is the wage floor pricing out workers"
That is not true. My arguments were listed in round one.
"yet my lowest unemployment argument is completely ignored."
Not ignored; rebutted.
"(Unemployment obviously not counting many people, mostly children, elderly which are a giant chunk of our population, + handicapped/injured)."
You haven't substantiated that at all; you merely claimed it.
"Even if he refuted my BoP, which he didnt,"
Yes, I did. Quite decisively, actually. Only two of your arguments can be related to the topic: "minimum wage lead to a boom for the american economy and especially unskilled workers..." and "By raising the min wage, people are able to afford biscuits. That shores up demand and creates an opportunity for the business to make profit by satisfying that demand..." You weren't able to substantiate either of these arguments; instead, you complained how it was impossible for one to control for the minimum wage and it's relation to GDP growth, yet had no concern issuing arguments which implicated the impossible. Not only was I able to counterargue this by highlighting the issues with causality... (to be continued)
"Fair enough; I didn't recall that particular rule on this or the handful of other debates I've voted on. Apologies."
Neither did I. It must be a fairly recent rule. Nevertheless your contribution is still appreciated.
I appreciate your diligence, as well as your vote.
@Christen: I saw your RFD through my mobile device beforehand, so all is well with that link. It wasn't until I logged in with my computer that I noticed the error with the first link.
@bmdrocks21: Does having no debates place limitations on voting? My first and only vote was done with no debates under my belt either, so I'm fairly certain what Harleygator did wasn't against the rules. (Maybe it was for debate.org) Perhaps check, first?
@Harleygator: Your vote is appreciated. I'm acknowledging your vote in particular because your analysis is fairly accurate. That is, my anecdote was intended to be explanatory not a reference to circumstance; the emotional language frequently invoked by my opponent; the issues with causality when attempting to correlate the minimum-wage and GDP growth, etc. Good eyes.
@Christen: Your first link leads to an RFD for the prospect of Donald Trump's impeachment; the second link can only be viewed by mobile devices. Your vote is appreciate as well. However, this error may present difficulties--i.e. vote deletion. Just a heads up.
I would agree to some extent. If I had an error, it was in creating a character limit that wasn’t commensurate to the time allotted for arguments or voting period. 30,000 is excessive. I don’t think anyone has come close to the limit. I think I went as high as fourteen thousand, where most of it were quotes and citations. Duly noted, bmdrocks.
"It's a nice calculation, but it misses the reality of peoples lives and priorities."
I actually addressed that right after the statement you quoted:
"Of course, I don't expect anyone to spend 80 hours focused on a single debate given other priorities (family, friends, homework, recreation, etc.) But even if you were to spend an eighth of that remaining time, that would still be 10 hours..."
Believe me, I understand. But the voting period wasn't set with any particular voter(s) in mind. Whoever wants to participate can participate. And it doesn't necessarily have to be a vote; it can be commentary as well. I'd be interested to see what takes others had on the subject.
1. One time reminder of your forfeit. Every mention of forfeit thereafter was in response to that fictional narrative of shaming, which you were clearly using to overcompensate for said forfeit.
2. There were no quotes taken out of context on my part. Every parsing was related back to your assertion that the legislation after the Industrial Revolution was meant to "equalize" or "balance" the "power" between employer and employee.
3. I asked for a citation for worker conditions BEFORE, DURING, and AFTER the Industrial Revolutions. You provided only one for during. (That was your first error.) You were the one who initially invoked the reference to the Industrial Revolutions with little to no focus on the minimum wage (that was your second error.) Any reference to the Industrial Revolutions and its relevance to the minimum-wage is your responsibility (that was your third error.) Even if you're claiming that I conspired in some "nefarious" plot to goad you into addressing an irrelevant tangent, as I've stated before, it would still be your responsibility to know which arguments are relevant to your position. If the roles were reversed, and you decided to ask for a citation or reference for my classroom anecdote, which would later be deemed irrelevant, then that would be my responsibility. The difference is, my arguments remained focused while yours didn't. You were more concerned with scrutinizing the free-market, rather than the subject over which we argued as evidenced many times throughout the debate. You were not "shamed" or "deceived." And most if not all of your "concerns" have no relevance to the substance of our debate.
For which error am I at fault? "Shaming" you? That's fiction. The time periods? You're not complaining about that, and assumed responsibility for your obliviousness, right? So that can't be it. Was it the burdens of proof? You said you were open to "going my way" so that must not be it either. Where was my error?
And you're right: complaining is unbecoming. So why are you doing it? (You've been complaining as far back as the beginning.)
1. I did ask for the reason for your forfeit; and you did mention that you were oblivious to the time limit. Whose fault was that? A full round had passed before your forfeit. You were able to manage a submission on time before; if you didn't read the description of the debate beforehand, then your discomfort was on you.
2. Yes, it was a courtesy and formality (as an authority on my own intentions, I outrank you.) And if you noticed--perhaps you didn't--the voting standard is "Winner Selection." There are NO conduct points. (Though, I can't really dictate the standards voters use at their discretion.) It's not necessary to handicap you by deductions in conduct, spelling, or even sourcing to provide a superior argument. Second, I always point out the forfeit in bold letters after the forfeit. (Look at every one of my debates.) If I continued to do this, then you would've had a point. I only continued to point out your forfeit because it was clear to me that you were using this "shaming" narrative you fictionalized to overcompensate for your forfeit. Hence, you sought to point out some "poor conduct," on my part using said narrative. As I said before, "nice try."
3. Blame is not the same as "shame." And your "shame" doesn't make you any less responsible for your arguments as well as your burden of proof. But this is rather nonsensical and irrelevant. I will indulge it no more.
4. It wasn't your burden to argue for "common sense regulations." It was your burden to argue for the "minimum wage." And the only arguments you made to that effect were easily refuted (i.e. in their absence, first world country cannot sustain themselves with third world wages, and the minimum wage boosted GDP.)
Second, let me repeat: I don't care how or what you feel; even less so, I'm not the slightest bit concerned about how or what I feel. Once again, it's all irrelevant.
5. I addressed every one of your statements however much beleaguered they were.
I'll admit that it probably would've been prudent to extend the voting period. But my concern is not the convenience of prospective voters, however big they may be. I still don't see how a week is too short. Even if one were to deduct the average 40 hour work/school week and 40 hour sleep schedule, one would still have more than three full days. Of course, I don't expect anyone to spend 80 hours focused on a single debate given other priorities (family, friends, homework, recreation, etc.) But even if you were to spend an eighth of that remaining time, that would still be 10 hours, which is far more than a sufficient amount of time to read the arguments of all five rounds (especially given that the opening arguments were rather short, and the third round consisted of a forfeit and an extension of argument) the sources provided, and render a judgement.
If this debate interests you, and you want to participate by voting, then do so. If it doesn't, then don't. However, your concerns haven't fallen on deaf ears. I may consider extending the voting periods to two weeks in future debates.
Let's get a few things straight:
1. You communicated no complaints about the time allotted until after Christen mentioned it. You had no reservations about communicating your concerns about the format, as evidenced below. Only after your forfeit did it become a concern, given that you managed to submit arguments on time for four out of the five rounds.
2. My "asking" the audience, and prospective voters for leeway was clearly a courtesy and formality. Hence, it was a statement and not a question. (Who's to say that anyone would've responded even if I "asked" a round before.) It's confusing that you'd bring it up.
3. I don't care about what or how you feel. That means I don't care enough about you to attempt to solicit any emotion from you, including shame. My actions are in service to debate. Since you invoked the language of "shame," it's obvious that you felt shamed. You must assume responsibility for that. Furthermore, how you feel, how I feel, how anyone else "feels" is irrelevant. So once again, let's dispense with the sophistry.
4. In this entire debate, you kept a tenuous focus on the subject at hand. We were not debating Socialism vs Capitalism; we were not debating Government Intervention vs Government Non-intervention. We were debating the Minimum Wage and its alleged benefit to the poor as the title suggests. It doesn't matter that the countries I listed are socialist as you claim. The other programs they have in place don't matter. The only aspects which matter are that of the minimum wage. And I cited six countries without a minimum wage which are considered first world, completely refuting your point.
5. And it's not lost on me, that in the final round of this debate, you did not address the refutation of your claim that minimum-wage boosted GDP. That is, the minimum wage was shown to demonstrate 1-2% decrease in low-skilled worker productivity for every 10% increase in the minimum wage.
The reasons I chose to have a relatively shorter amount of time allotted between arguments were: (1) it's been my experience that most people who debated with me have forfeited at some point, so to hedge against prolonged periods of waiting for the debate to end, I ensured that this debate would undoubtedly end in at most fifteen days, and (2) 10 weeks (one week for each of the five rounds afforded to each debater) is an absurdly lengthy amount to have a discussion about the benefits of the minimum wage. Since Nemiroff and I were already discussing the topic in the forums, as well as outlining some particulars through private messaging, I didn't see a need for anything more than three days.
As for the voting period, I assume that those who would take an interest in voting normally follow the debate as it's happening, and not stumble across it weeks after the fact, and submit a vote in order to boost a stat. It's my way of screening prospective voters. The time shouldn't be a problem if one were following the arguments somewhat regularly. I've used this method in almost every debate I've started and I have yet to discover any drawbacks.
The subject is the same: "The Minimum Wage Is Beneficial to the Poor." It's just that our arguments supporting our respective theses will be different. And this subject as titled requires two different theses: one which affirms the proposition, and one which negates it. Unlike the forum, formal debates require more structure (formats, stipulations, definitions, etc.)
Now that our opening arguments are out of the way, you can challenge my reasoning, and I can challenge yours. The resolution of this debate is ultimately and primarily "does the minimum wage benefit the poor?" not "can Athias find a cheaper method for cleaning his blackboard?" or "Is Nemiroff right about the second Industrial Revolution?" As long as the arguments inform the effect of the minimum wage, then there's nothing about which to worry. Not to mention, we have four more rounds, and a 30,000 character limit. So whatever needs to be addressed can be addressed.
The burden of proof is assigned to the argument which affirms a claim. Your claim is "p" -- the minimum wage is beneficial to the poor; my claim is "q" -- the minimum wage is not beneficial to the poor. It just so happens that my argument "q" is the negation of your argument p. It's being "positive" or "negative" has no relevance. I have just as much a burden to substantiate my claim as you do yours. If we were to follow your format, and have you defend your position while I simply probe, then the resolution to this debate would be "Can Nemiroff defend the Minimum Wage?" as oppose to "The Minimum Wage Is/Isn't Beneficial to the Poor." I cannot use your failure to defend your position as information for my position less I risk arguing from ignorance, a logical fallacy; thus, your format would be in fact the less effective method. You may not be used to arguing this way, but it is a sound method.
Round One: Opening Arguments (I provide my thesis and argument; you provide your thesis and argument.)
Round Two: Rebuttals (Defend/Supplement theses and arguments; rebut opponents thesis and argument.)
Rounds Three & Four: Rebuttals/Rejoinders (Defend theses and arguments; rebut opponents thesis and argument; rebut rebuttals.)
Round Five: Closing Arguments (Reaffirm theses and arguments; summation.)
It's not difficult at all. As long as you keep focus on the resolution, the format should be easily to follow (and in my experience is quite helpful.)
I'm interested in seeing how this debate pans out. Good luck to the both of you.
First, your definition is a bit of an ad lib as the citation states, "to have real being, whether material or spiritual"; if you operate on this definition, then you'll lose this debate in an expedient fashion. A competent debater will use it against you. (So I recommend you edit your description for your own benefit.) If after some time, no one else accepts, I'll consider accepting your challenge.
I would make them a single week. Anime debates especially are more for the purposes of entertainment, and I don't think any prospective voter would want to wait an entire month to see the result of their vote, discouraging them from voting early. Furthermore, as you've suggested, the extended periods make the debate prone to ending up on the bottom of the pile especially in juxtaposition to other debates that have voting periods of just a single week. Furthermore, I believe that shortening the voting period would also attract more prospective opponents to any anime debate, which are scarce to begin with, you conceive.
@King_8:
"Athias, did you get my comment about the reason why I always make the voting period one month? Hopefully you understand."
Yes, I did. I think a month is overkill, but you started the debate, so it's your prerogative.
"Athias - I do get what you are saying but you must understand everyone has a different perception. It's not that serious. Please have good sportsmanship because the behavior being displayed from you does not show professionalism, it just shows pouting and saltiness. Knocks off respect points on your end. There's something I disagree with whiteflame as well but I'm not going to sit up here and go back and forth with him as it is his opinion. It's just an anime debate, not everyone has seen the same series as us, such as MHA, Death note, OPM or HxH. It can't be helped. If this was a serious debate about worldly issues and reality, then a back and forth this long would be warranted."
I don't disagree with the vote per se, I disagree with the reasoning. The reasoning for Basilisk and Basilisk alone stuck out like a sore thumb, so I addressed it. As I told whiteflame, a consistent score/vote is better than an inconsistent one, even if that meant the other series, including my own, would have gotten lower scores. And I take all debates seriously; if I simply intended to talk about this casually, then I would've suggested we move this discussion to the forums.
@whiteflame:
"For what it's worth, I don't think this is about whether Athias won or lost. I understand his frustration because I understand what he thinks I did and how it could have affected my perception of a particular scene. He saw aspects of my vote that gave him the impression that I applied a different standard to the Basilisk fight and wants me to own the perceived error, so this is more about standing on principle than standing in opposition to my vote."
Basically, yes.
"However, to be clear, if I took context out of the picture, it’s your score that would suffer the most. My vote would not change, even if the scores would."
I've already acknowledged that possibility. My contention isn't that you voted in favor of King_8's choices. My contention is that your reasoning for Basilisk, and Basilisk alone, was inconsistent. A consistent vote is better than an inconsistent one, even if it meant that my other choices would also have gotten a "5" (e.g. Death Note, My Hero Academia, etc.) And it's not a different perception. You, yourself, entertained the possibility that your not watching the series may have informed your understanding of the context. (I even quoted you verbatim.) This context you're looking for in Basilisk isn't present in the other clips, with the exception of just a few. I know this because I've watched every series mentioned in this debate in their entirety with the exceeption of One Piece, which I gave up on a long time ago. So I know the scene between Netero vs Meruem does not have this context of which you speak; I know that the scene between Saitama vs Boros doesn't have this context of which you speak; I know that the scene between Light and L doesn't have this context of which you speak; I know the fight between Kirei and Kiritsugu doesn't have this context of which you speak; I've watched them. Any substantive character motivation or background woudn't have been made available to you by watching those scenes alone, even if you had watched them in their entirety. But rather than holding yourself responsible for the incomplete context your lack of watching informed, you instead obligated the scene and selection to do this. If you don't agree with this conclusion, that's fine as well. This discussion obviously has no bearing on your vote since it's already been cast. Think of this as an exercise in plot analysis.
So, for example, had you given a score commensurate to the others, or for example, grading the scenes, even my own, much lower because they in and of themselves had just as much or not enough context either, I wouldn't have been vexed. Because your rationale would've been consistent. I may have still lost your vote regardless.
My issue isn't that you had an opinion. My issue is this opinion is applied inconsistently. Knowing that you haven't watched the series, the demand or requirement for contextual explanation ought to have been somewhat tempered. To the contrary, you held your lack of watching the series against the scene, instead requiring that it made episodes of build-up clear in the submitted clip. That would be fine, but did the clips of One Punch Man do this? Hunter x Hunter? Death Note? (These questions are rhetorical, I know that they don't.) Not even the scenes in their entirety give context to episodes of build up, so then what is the one difference between Basilisk and the other series? You haven't watched it. Instead you characterized it as a poor selection because of a context which could've been obtained by watching the previous episodes. So the question then becomes: how much context do you require? I explained several aspects of just the scene alone that one could've objectively used to create a picture of what's going on. In other words, context. If however, you were looking for a bit more in-depth character analysis in a single scene, that would be a bit much, an amount I'm fairly confident the other clips/scenes haven't done.
I'm not saying you should've lied. I'm saying that you should have considered more introspectively. "To what or whom does the responsibility of my not watching Basilisk belong?" The scene? The selection? Or yourself? You entertained the third as a possibility, but you essentially placed it on the former two; thus, your frequent mention that it went beyond the scope of the debate to "expect" you to do research despite your being the one to demand context. And this is only exacerbated by the fact that: (1) I didn't know you would vote beforehand, and (2) I didn't know you would participate having not seen the show.
Then when you watch the other clips and ascertain that this context is either just as limited, or perhaps more so, then yeah, I will question your consistency. Why was Oboro's motivations being clear necessary? Why did the presence of the other characters not pay off (if this had no discernible context, why would that have any sort of meaning either way?) You admitted/presumed correctly that there was some build up over the previous episodes of which you did not know (instead requiring the scene selected to make the extent of this building up clear.) When you really think about it, you are the variable: you watch the series, you understand; you don't watch the series, you don't understand.
"Look, if you don't like my reasons, that's your prerogative."
I don't dislike your reasons; I'm vexed by the inconsistency.
"and you can either choose to believe that or choose to conclude that someone who went through a great deal of effort and consideration with all of these choices (more so with the Basilisk fight because I spent quite a bit longer analyzing it) is being dismissive of the fight's strengths solely because he hasn't watched the series."
It's not really a matter of belief; it's your statements that inform my conclusion:
"This one’s the hardest to judge because I have no context for it (haven’t seen Basilisk). I’d say it probably wasn’t the best choice because it seems to build from some really integral relationships built up over the past 8 episodes. 'Maybe it’s just because I have seen the others,' but I don’t think any of them required a build up or understanding of the series of events as much as this does."
and
"(harder to do with Kiritisugu and Kirei, but hey, that's Fate Zero for you)."
Context with others is conveniently available to you because you already watched the series. You admit that Fate/Zero doesn't give much context "but hey, that's Fate Zero for you." It's not like I'm making this up as I go. I'm reading your statement, and deducing your logic.
"You may want someone who is willing to judge these fights on a more basic level or someone who has watched all these series and has extensive knowledge of the context behind each of these fights. Sorry, I can't do either of those things, and I tried to be relatively fair in leaving out much of the context behind these fights and focusing on the information I was presented."
I want someone to judge these fights consistently. When you mention this demand for contextual explanation for Basilisk alone, coupled with your mention of not watching the series, it's not unreasonable to relate the two.
If the fight itself didn't impress you, then it didn't impress you. (There's no shame in it being that simple of a reason.) I'm scrutinizing your judgement based on the standards you've claimed you've used here. I'm stating that this "context" you've claimed is absent in Basilisk isn't really present in many of the other clips provided including some of my own. To have a grasp for Boros's motivations, for example, you would've had to have watched the entire episode and some of the previous episode; to understand Saitama's motivations you would've had to have watched a few more episodes, the very thing for which you penalized Basilisk (i.e. the satire, the hero association, the rankings, the irony that Saitama, then a Class C Hero, was the one who defeated Boros, etc.) And let's face it, reading succinct character summaries isn't as compelling as watching the content, which unfortunately for Basilisk, the other series had that luxury. There's no immersion; there's no relation.
I'm concluding that your judgement is mostly (if not entirely) influenced by your not watching the series, and you admit almost as much when giving your initial reason. And many of your criticisms are derivative of your not watching it. And Basilisk, even in that short scene gives more context than many of the other clips (probably with Goku vs Frieza and Kakashi vs Obito being among the few (if not only) exceptions.)
You're essentially holding the Basilisk scene responsible for your not watching the series. And given the nature of this debate, King_8 and I were allowed to select among hundreds of different anime. Not to mention, I've never conversed with you before the fact, so there's no way for me to know which anime you have seen. Not every scene gives you the entire picture, and if you're going to hold that against Basilisk, that's fine. But then the same can be said for Saitama vs Boros; Netero vs Meruem; All Might vs All For One; Kirei vs Kiritsugu; Light vs L, etc. Most of these clips don't give the entire picture.
I know that this is entirely subjective; my concern is the consistency. And you're not being genuine about Saitama vs Boros. Based on the clip alone, there was no mention of "looking for someone powerful enough to challenge," not even anything close to it. You had to have seen a longer version, meaning you did your own research outside of the selected clips, or had to have seen the series/episode already to form your judgement. There's no way to grasp any of that which you stated if someone were watching that clip with a fresh pair of eyes (and I know this personally because before I watched One Punch Man, this scene was shown to me, and I didn't think much of it then.) My point is, if you were going to judge the fights superficially, then judge them superficially. If background information, motivations, and contexts need to be conveyed during the fight, then that standard ought to be applied to all, no? Even in my recommended four and half watch of Basilisk, there's a lot more information and context conveyed than that clip of Saitama vs Boros. The difference is that you've seen One Punch Man, and you haven't seen Basilisk.
And I find it hard to believe that you couldn't glean Oboro's motivations, if not from watching that scene, then reading her wikipedia description. In the first three lines of her description in both the fandom wiki and wikipedia, it states that she's the leader of the Iga Clan and she's engaged to Gennosuke Kouga. So how far did you read? Kirei vs Kiritsugu also contained a lot of subtext, especially since there was no dialogue in that scene. What was the difference? You saw Fate/Zero.