I think argument points are determined with enough subjectivity that as long as the voter explains why they felt a specific argument was stronger than the other, it counts as an acceptable vote. However, I do believe that the conduct point was unwarranted.
I don't really think I could be neutral in light of R5, considering F-777 and Waterflame are two of my favorite artists (and have been for 6 years). Thanks for asking anyway.
In retrospect, I do regret my arguments in this debate somewhat (and I don't quite think I really deserved the praise of putting up a good fight). I had a great chance to debate a deep, fascinating topic with a debater far better than me and I kinda blew it. I didn't have any self-confidence in my debating skills at the time and figured I would get smashed by blamonkey in a direct, evidence-based debate so I just turned tail and dodged his impacts using a strategy that might have worked for less experienced judges, but certainly not ones on the caliber of whiteflame or oromagi.
If I had a chance to redo this today, I feel like I would have put up a much better performance. blamonkey's arguments, while convincing, were hardly irrefutable. I can think of a lot of things off the top of my head:
-Outweigh via magnitude + delink: Loss of economic income from luxury industries is outweighed by substantial good being done, plus charity industries will replace jobs and economic activity from loss of luxury industries
-Outweigh via timeframe: People are starving now, we need to help them; industries don't disappear overnight, we have time to adapt
-Outweigh via probability: CON's impacts are hypothetical, my impacts are concrete;
-Propose a hypothetical plan: If CON treats it like policy, than so can I. Argue for a plan where economic industries gradually adapt to changes in spending patterns (people aren't going to donate wealth overnight, after all)
Or a combination of all of these.
I also find CON's national sovreignty argument less convincing now than it did back then: charitable funding could always be contingent on a country's respect for democratic and social norms. This would also turn the impact, as citizens would now hold their govt's even more accountable in order to retain access to international funding.
Sorry, I was on a family vacation and without convenient internet access. Apologies for not telling you, I really should have done that before my sudden departure.
Thanks. However, the reason that I brought up these cases is precisely for a few important points.
First, we can talk all we want about "general cases," but what exactly is a general case? By definition, general is an arbitrary descriptor. For many, abortions performed due to a severe, albeit non-life threatening disorder (such as Down Syndrome), fall within this "elective" category. There are quite a few, however, who disagree.
Second, ignoring exceptions only makes sense if these exceptions are accounted for in the real world. Assuming this debate regards policy, a sensible starting point for discussion is to look at the effects of existing state abortion bans. Surprisingly (or not surprisingly), many states don't account for these exceptions. If I remember correctly, SIXTEEN STATES with abortion bans allow *no exception* for *fatal* fetal disorders.
To express my view simply: general cases are arbitrary, and existing policies fail to address exceptions. That's mostly the reason why I was seeking clarification on the scope of what this debate aims to discuss. I hope we can come to an agreement on this.
Yea, that looks better. Just another few things:
-should abortion be legal if conceived through incest?
-should abortion be legal if the fetus is unlikely to survive?
-should abortion be legal if the mother's life is in danger?
-should abortion be legal if the mother is likely to have significant mental health disorders as a result?
-should abortion be legal if the fetus will be born with a severe developmental disorder (e.g. Down Syndrome)?
and, importantly:
-what would be the punishment if an abortion against the law is performed?
Sorry for the late response, some personal things came up.
My main concern is the use of "in the majority of cases." It feels somewhat nebulously defined - a majority could be used to encompass a lot of arbitrary categories. I would prefer if the resolution was changed to "THBT abortion should be illegal in the United States, except in cases of [insert smth here]." This, in my opinion, would also be more consistent with the real-life opinions that people hold - when people say that "I usually oppose abortion," it tends to mean that they oppose abortion with a few exceptions, rather than they want an arbitrary 49% of abortions to be allowed.
Hai, thanks for the reminder. I'll probably pass - I did some research and I learned America's status quo immigration system is even more broken than I thought it was. And sure, if you ever need a debater for some other interesting topic, feel free to ping me.
Yea, I'd probably accept if the description includes that "Con defends the status quo as preferable to Pro's proposal, and can suggest potential future changes to the status quo as needed." Otherwise, I might still accept the debate, but I'd need to think on it - it's certainly a complex topic.
Sure. Just one more question: am I allowed to suggest an alternative plan (e.g. letting in 20% of people who wish to immigrate), or do I have to defend the status quo exactly and completely as it is?
In order to award legibility points, you must specifically explain how one side's legibility was poor to the point that it harmed comprehension of their arguments.
I think argument points are determined with enough subjectivity that as long as the voter explains why they felt a specific argument was stronger than the other, it counts as an acceptable vote. However, I do believe that the conduct point was unwarranted.
At least one piece of CON's cited information is clearly hallucinated in R1.
Here is game 16 of the 1985 World Championship match. It wasn't a draw, nor was it the Petroff Defense:
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1067175
I don't consider this judge intervention because fake evidence deserved to be called out. Do what you will with it.
Noted
I realized it as AI as soon as I saw the first sentence, lol. No one writes a serious argument like that.
I'll try to keep up. As a chess player myself, I'm interested to see how each side plays out the definition debate
I would've if you tagged me :{
A chess debate, awesome
I suppose news of your ban was greatly exaggerated?
ill probs vote soon on this to break the tie
I don't really think I could be neutral in light of R5, considering F-777 and Waterflame are two of my favorite artists (and have been for 6 years). Thanks for asking anyway.
I'll admit I was a little bit peeved by that one.
In retrospect, I do regret my arguments in this debate somewhat (and I don't quite think I really deserved the praise of putting up a good fight). I had a great chance to debate a deep, fascinating topic with a debater far better than me and I kinda blew it. I didn't have any self-confidence in my debating skills at the time and figured I would get smashed by blamonkey in a direct, evidence-based debate so I just turned tail and dodged his impacts using a strategy that might have worked for less experienced judges, but certainly not ones on the caliber of whiteflame or oromagi.
If I had a chance to redo this today, I feel like I would have put up a much better performance. blamonkey's arguments, while convincing, were hardly irrefutable. I can think of a lot of things off the top of my head:
-Outweigh via magnitude + delink: Loss of economic income from luxury industries is outweighed by substantial good being done, plus charity industries will replace jobs and economic activity from loss of luxury industries
-Outweigh via timeframe: People are starving now, we need to help them; industries don't disappear overnight, we have time to adapt
-Outweigh via probability: CON's impacts are hypothetical, my impacts are concrete;
-Propose a hypothetical plan: If CON treats it like policy, than so can I. Argue for a plan where economic industries gradually adapt to changes in spending patterns (people aren't going to donate wealth overnight, after all)
Or a combination of all of these.
I also find CON's national sovreignty argument less convincing now than it did back then: charitable funding could always be contingent on a country's respect for democratic and social norms. This would also turn the impact, as citizens would now hold their govt's even more accountable in order to retain access to international funding.
Sure, I'll start working on one. Always interested in this topic.
Sorry, I was on a family vacation and without convenient internet access. Apologies for not telling you, I really should have done that before my sudden departure.
Thanks - that's quite generous, considering I deliberately dropped 80% of your arguments - a decision some might call questionable.
Thanks! And don't worry, I haven't forgotten about the debate - I've been thinking about it (I usually like to do some research before acceptance)
Good debate :)
Thanks for voting (or voting soon) on this debate. I really appreciate the feedback.
2 hrs to vote. (Sorry for forgetting you in my first message, Weaver.)
Less than 5 hours remain to vote, btw. Thanks in advance if you choose to do so :)
Thanks. However, the reason that I brought up these cases is precisely for a few important points.
First, we can talk all we want about "general cases," but what exactly is a general case? By definition, general is an arbitrary descriptor. For many, abortions performed due to a severe, albeit non-life threatening disorder (such as Down Syndrome), fall within this "elective" category. There are quite a few, however, who disagree.
Second, ignoring exceptions only makes sense if these exceptions are accounted for in the real world. Assuming this debate regards policy, a sensible starting point for discussion is to look at the effects of existing state abortion bans. Surprisingly (or not surprisingly), many states don't account for these exceptions. If I remember correctly, SIXTEEN STATES with abortion bans allow *no exception* for *fatal* fetal disorders.
To express my view simply: general cases are arbitrary, and existing policies fail to address exceptions. That's mostly the reason why I was seeking clarification on the scope of what this debate aims to discuss. I hope we can come to an agreement on this.
Yea, that looks better. Just another few things:
-should abortion be legal if conceived through incest?
-should abortion be legal if the fetus is unlikely to survive?
-should abortion be legal if the mother's life is in danger?
-should abortion be legal if the mother is likely to have significant mental health disorders as a result?
-should abortion be legal if the fetus will be born with a severe developmental disorder (e.g. Down Syndrome)?
and, importantly:
-what would be the punishment if an abortion against the law is performed?
Sorry for the late response, some personal things came up.
My main concern is the use of "in the majority of cases." It feels somewhat nebulously defined - a majority could be used to encompass a lot of arbitrary categories. I would prefer if the resolution was changed to "THBT abortion should be illegal in the United States, except in cases of [insert smth here]." This, in my opinion, would also be more consistent with the real-life opinions that people hold - when people say that "I usually oppose abortion," it tends to mean that they oppose abortion with a few exceptions, rather than they want an arbitrary 49% of abortions to be allowed.
Looks fairly reasonable so far. I'll think about any suggestions or clarifications I want, then get back to you in a bit.
Sure, I'll make sure to drop a vote later.
ratio
What do you think of my first argument (in general)? Just curious :}
Thx for the reminder. Been working intermittently throughout the week and should have it out by tonight.
Thanks to all for voting.
Votes would be appreciated - should be a fairly easy one. Apologies for the lameness of the debate, though.
Thanks for the vote.
Excellent first argument, btw.
Hai, thanks for the reminder. I'll probably pass - I did some research and I learned America's status quo immigration system is even more broken than I thought it was. And sure, if you ever need a debater for some other interesting topic, feel free to ping me.
Yea, I'd probably accept if the description includes that "Con defends the status quo as preferable to Pro's proposal, and can suggest potential future changes to the status quo as needed." Otherwise, I might still accept the debate, but I'd need to think on it - it's certainly a complex topic.
Thanks! I felt it was a bit below my usual standard, but I think I did enough to uphold my part of the debate.
Sure. Just one more question: am I allowed to suggest an alternative plan (e.g. letting in 20% of people who wish to immigrate), or do I have to defend the status quo exactly and completely as it is?
Also, to "grant entry" means to immediately allow any such individuals to enter and live in America, right?
Change the time to 1 week and I will definitely accept. (You can also do 3 days, in which case I'll flip a coin instead to decide)
Maybe. Any precise definition of a "psychoactive substance"?
Yes, it was. I'm a real dunce when I wake up in the morning.
I mean - I could say something about post hoc ergo propter hoc.. but honestly, on the whole, your presidency has exceeded my expectations.
R1 SOURCES:
1: https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/magna-carta-muse-and-mentor/no-taxation-without-representation.html
2: https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/legislativescrutiny/parliament-and-empire/parliament-and-the-american-colonies-before-1765/the-stamp-act-and-the-american-colonies-1763-67/
3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington,_D.C.
4: https://www.mountvernon.org/george-washington/colonial-life-today/early-american-economics-facts/
5: https://pressbooks-dev.oer.hawaii.edu/ushistory/chapter/confronting-the-national-debt-the-aftermath-of-the-french-and-indian-war/
6: https://www.history.com/topics/american-revolution/boston-massacre
7: https://www.britannica.com/event/American-Revolution
8: https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/american-revolution-faqs
9: https://www.ushistory.org/us/23b.asp
10: https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/06/13/cost-of-war-13-most-expensive-wars-in-us-history/39556983/
11. Ibid 4
12. https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/legal-and-political-magazines/british-view-americas-slave-trade
Nicely done first round.
I'll vote on this later... at the very least, it's an interesting enough debate that it deserves a vote that actually considers both sides' arguments.
No way you just cited Mein Kampf... the audacity is impressive.
Thanks for your well-thought-out votes. I sincerely appreciate the feedback.
In order to award legibility points, you must specifically explain how one side's legibility was poor to the point that it harmed comprehension of their arguments.
Change the "time for argument" to two weeks and I will accept.
R3 SOURCES:
1: https://oncubanews.com/en/cuba/inequality-and-population-at-risk-of-poverty-in-cuba/
2: https://www.ascecuba.org/asce_proceedings/cuba-external-debt-and-finance-in-the-context-of-limited-reforms/
3: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40752161
4: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0022343320962566
5: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3911478
6: https://www.cato.org/regulation/fall-2013/more-economic-freedom-more-jobs
7: https://globaledge.msu.edu/countries/vietnam/memo#:~:text=Vietnam%20has%20a%20mixed%20economy,%2DPacific%20Partnership%20(TPP)
8: https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2023/03/13/vietnam-s-economy-forecast-to-grow-by-6-3-in-2023-world-bank-report-says
9: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1062976916300114
10: https://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/how-economic-freedom-creates-healthy-environment
11: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/cuba-confirms-first-coronavirus-cases-tells-people-make-their-own-n1156711
Done.
If either of you have any questions/objections to my vote, just let me know.