"Absurd special rules [can be considered invalid]. Whereas some clarifications in the description are conducive to the spirit of debate, others are clearly set to swindle someone out of having an actual debate." -DART's voting policy
So it's up to voters whether to uphold that rule or not. Personally, if I was to vote on this debate, I wouldn't. I find a minimum character limit against the spirit of debate. The spirit of debate is to convince voters that your side is correct. If either side can do it in a concise manner, then they ought to be rewarded, not punished, for that.
Thanks to all of you for your time and consideration in being willing to judge a long and complex debate for an important event. My opponent and I appreciate it. Please vote fairly, regardless of any past feelings :)
Well, I have the excuse of realizing this debate existed 30 minutes before the deadline. But yes, it was far sloppier than my best - I could definitely have done way better.
Overall, this was a great debate. I apologize for voting late – it wouldn’t have changed anything, but still, it’s on me for not planning it into my after-school schedule.
Arguments:
This debate was definitely tricky to judge, since there were a lot of arguments, but the majority of them had little to no impact. I assumed roughly equal burdens for both sides, as they were arguing for the merits of opposing plans.
For CON, I wasn’t convinced by most of the arguments by the end of the debate. In particular, the racism and insanity plea arguments seemed to be particularly weak, as if they were just tacked on at the end for some extra fluff. His arguments about cost got turned around by the cost of current enforcement, while he failed to demonstrate any substantial, or concrete harms, for LEGALIZATION in particular – it's important to note that legalization won’t magically cause linearly increased harms, while prohibition won’t cause marijuana to disappear.
His first and second contentions were good, and I definitely weighed them substantially, as I buy that they go up linearly as marijuana use increases. The third and fourth go together, but were less convincing – people who are already addicted don’t care about whether marijuana is legal or not.
Meanwhile, PRO had some good sources and contentions, but he suffered from a lack of a focused structure. His contention about reducing overdoses from opioids was poorly supported and went nowhere. I did like some nice reversals and source contesting, it definitely mitigated CON’s case. On the other hand, the substantial whataboutism about other drugs, as well as some less relevant points, had little impact. However, there was an excellent contention about imprisonment, which was successful in mitigating CON’s societal harms.
In terms of rebuttals, CON did better in addressing all points, but did so in less depth. PRO dropped a few points, but he had strong rebuttals to many of CON’s main points. So both sides did decent here.
If both sides had fully proven their case was directly linked to the legalization (or prohibition) of marijuana, their impacts would be equal and I would probably leave it tied. However, there’s a crucial distinction here: PRO managed to use concrete data from the real world to demonstrate the effects of prohibition, while CON didn’t - all he did was cite harms of marijuana, and try to directly link them to legalization. However, without some sort of concrete number, or a case that the harms would be direct, and proportionate to the harms of not legalization marijuana, I don’t give it as much weight.
So all in all, arguments go to PRO, but it was a close one.
Sources:
Both sides did their due diligence with sources, and I saw no glaring gaps or inaccuracies in terms of what the sources said, and what it was claimed to say.
S/G:
Good by both sides.
Conduct:
Good by both sides – glad to see a minimum of ad hominems. Great sportsmanship by CON, offering to waive the “no forfeitures” rule, BTW.
I can't do the debate this week because I have three separate exams for my classes, as well as two extracurricular competitions, lol. I have not changed my mind in any way whatsoever - I simply do not want to forfeit 4 rounds.
Contrary to popular belief, some people have lives outside of this site. Also BTW, your resolution is so poorly articulated it could be defeated by a few paragraphs.
Since I don't have the same information that Novice does, I'm afraid I can't accept. However, I offer a counter-challenge if you're interested in standing by your claims: "THBT Novice_II is of sound mind."
"I notice you claim I'm projecting and afraid of losing and that's why I keep cowardly challenging Novice to debate. Since he's so very bravely chickening out on defending any of his claims, would you be interested in standing in for him?"
OK, after rereading that a few times, I finally get what you mean by "breathing expert" - but it's like, a really weird way to phrase it, bordering on the intentionally malicious. It's like claiming, "I do practical work in my field for 8 hours each day," when you're a somnologist.
And regarding Zoya... obviously, Chauvin was completely in the wrong in that incident. But I thought we were discussing whether Novice is a white supremacist, not whether Derek Chauvin is a racist.
If you bring up a point, it gets refuted, and you don't bring it up again or defend it, I consider it as being dropped. In this case, you brought up Novice's other debates, I pointed out most of them were irrelevant (i.e., non sequitur), and you didn't bring it up again.
"I kinda doubt you read that debate, as Novice got so comically bad he started denying that black people breath!"
I spent 30 minutes reading that debate, since I actually enjoy reading debates. Please respect my time by not lying.
"At one point he even insisted George Floyd was white to try to prove that Chauvin isn't racist "He is also a WHITE MAN, CON lied about him being African American.""
No, Novice was referring to the so-called breathing expert, who was called in court, and was not present during the actual event. The great thing about written records is that it's easy to see who's telling the truth about what happened.
""To establish the facts there, George Floyd had heart disease [17] and at the time of his arrested "Floyd had 11 ng/mL of fentanyl in his system" [18]."
A non-sequitur by Novice that was rightfully penalized by the judges, but irrelevant to Novice's personal views.
""We can never say with 100% certainty what was the ultimate cause of Floyd's death""
Again, a non-sequitur does not equal white supremacy. Try again.
-Zoya Code was resisting arrest (dropped by you)
-There was no evidence that it was racially motivated (also dropped by you)
Personally I don't really buy it, but if you wanted to really prove anything, you should have actually refuted that second point.
Also, still no evidence of white supremacy, plus you've dropped everything you've said about Novice's other debates, showing that they were a non-sequitur.
Linking a 28,000 character long argument, and then waving at it and saying, "see, Novice said Floyd's death wasn't murder," without giving any specific quotes, is not evidence. Nevertheless, I read through it, and I still found no evidence for your baseless assertion, unless you're going to give me a specific quote from Novice (which I know you won't).
If Novice had said that Black people commit more crimes, therefore they should be more violently handled, then that would be a racist statement. However, it seems to me that he was putting forth that argument in order to support his earlier points about why Chauvin was arresting Black people at a greater rate than population demographics would suggest.
I've said it before, I'll say it again - having wrong, unsourced, or biased opinions regarding controversial topics does not make you a white supremacist.
I read that debate, and it seemed to come down to semantics, as well as the reasonable burden of proof. Novice claimed that it needed to be shown that Chauvin acted with intentional racism in that moment - you claimed that a past history of racist actions was more than enough. Nowhere in that debate did Novice claim that:
-Floyd deserved his death
-Chauvin's actions were justified
-Chauvin hadn't done anything wrong
-etc...
I simply don't consider your claims of Novice being a white supremacist anything more than a baseless ad hominem.
Again, there's a far cry between extravagant lies and being schizophrenic/mentally ill.
And with regard to the links you provided...
Disagreeing with affirmative action, does not make you a white supremacist (unless you're implying that I'm one).
With the Derek Chauvin debate, I read through that. While I found Novice's claims less than convincing, there was no indication of espousing White supremacy - he was merely claiming that Chauvin's actions were not motivated by racism.
Disliking the BLM riots, which have caused more harm than good, does not make you a white supremacist.
Claiming that there are reasons for disparities in police actions, other than racism, does not make you a white supremacist.
And for the white nationalism debate, Novice was not the instigator - so there's no real indication that it's his true beliefs. In fact, his argument makes perfect sense if he's only trying to win the debate.
I mean, I don't expect Barney to be nice to Novice, but I think calling him a "batshit crazy white supremacist" goes too far. You're entitled to your opinion, though.
I disagree with Novice's opinion as much as the next guy, but I do dislike seeing 2v1's, so time to jump in.
Frankly, I find it shameful for you to call Novice "a batshit crazy white supremacist." This is a debate site, dedicated to the free and open exchange of opinions. To call someone that is a serious accusation, that needs to be backed up with concrete evidence, not just a single debate a while ago (and for all we know, it might not even represent Novice's true opinions).
You banned (or at the very least, contributed to the ban of) Polytheist-Witch for "extravagant lies," which apparently counted as any unsourced accusation. Are you not doing the same thing now? As a member of the mod team, you ought to be held to a higher standard than a regular user, as you represent what's supposed to be the best of this site.
Novice may or may not be a better debater than you are (I suspect he would win with a balanced resolution, although it'd be quite close), but he deserves respect as much as anyone else. I am on team Novice here.
"Absurd special rules [can be considered invalid]. Whereas some clarifications in the description are conducive to the spirit of debate, others are clearly set to swindle someone out of having an actual debate." -DART's voting policy
So it's up to voters whether to uphold that rule or not. Personally, if I was to vote on this debate, I wouldn't. I find a minimum character limit against the spirit of debate. The spirit of debate is to convince voters that your side is correct. If either side can do it in a concise manner, then they ought to be rewarded, not punished, for that.
About one day remains to vote if you choose to do so, BTW.
This debate can only be described as a stoppable force meeting a movable object.
Thanks for the feedback. Looking forward to your vote.
I think both of us went slightly bonkers with the definitional debate, honestly.
Thanks for the vote - I definitely appreciate the detailed feedback.
(╯°□°）╯︵ /( ‿⌓‿ )\
Thanks to all of you for your time and consideration in being willing to judge a long and complex debate for an important event. My opponent and I appreciate it. Please vote fairly, regardless of any past feelings :)
Good to see you back.
Well, I have the excuse of realizing this debate existed 30 minutes before the deadline. But yes, it was far sloppier than my best - I could definitely have done way better.
I would never try this versus Intel lol, he would destroy me if it came down to definitions.
Somehow I feel like this debate got slightly derailed...
Overall, this was a great debate. I apologize for voting late – it wouldn’t have changed anything, but still, it’s on me for not planning it into my after-school schedule.
Arguments:
This debate was definitely tricky to judge, since there were a lot of arguments, but the majority of them had little to no impact. I assumed roughly equal burdens for both sides, as they were arguing for the merits of opposing plans.
For CON, I wasn’t convinced by most of the arguments by the end of the debate. In particular, the racism and insanity plea arguments seemed to be particularly weak, as if they were just tacked on at the end for some extra fluff. His arguments about cost got turned around by the cost of current enforcement, while he failed to demonstrate any substantial, or concrete harms, for LEGALIZATION in particular – it's important to note that legalization won’t magically cause linearly increased harms, while prohibition won’t cause marijuana to disappear.
His first and second contentions were good, and I definitely weighed them substantially, as I buy that they go up linearly as marijuana use increases. The third and fourth go together, but were less convincing – people who are already addicted don’t care about whether marijuana is legal or not.
Meanwhile, PRO had some good sources and contentions, but he suffered from a lack of a focused structure. His contention about reducing overdoses from opioids was poorly supported and went nowhere. I did like some nice reversals and source contesting, it definitely mitigated CON’s case. On the other hand, the substantial whataboutism about other drugs, as well as some less relevant points, had little impact. However, there was an excellent contention about imprisonment, which was successful in mitigating CON’s societal harms.
In terms of rebuttals, CON did better in addressing all points, but did so in less depth. PRO dropped a few points, but he had strong rebuttals to many of CON’s main points. So both sides did decent here.
If both sides had fully proven their case was directly linked to the legalization (or prohibition) of marijuana, their impacts would be equal and I would probably leave it tied. However, there’s a crucial distinction here: PRO managed to use concrete data from the real world to demonstrate the effects of prohibition, while CON didn’t - all he did was cite harms of marijuana, and try to directly link them to legalization. However, without some sort of concrete number, or a case that the harms would be direct, and proportionate to the harms of not legalization marijuana, I don’t give it as much weight.
So all in all, arguments go to PRO, but it was a close one.
Sources:
Both sides did their due diligence with sources, and I saw no glaring gaps or inaccuracies in terms of what the sources said, and what it was claimed to say.
S/G:
Good by both sides.
Conduct:
Good by both sides – glad to see a minimum of ad hominems. Great sportsmanship by CON, offering to waive the “no forfeitures” rule, BTW.
Oh fuq, I had the Rfd written, but I forgot to post it. Very sorry and will post ASAP. It's good to see it didn't affect the result of the debate tho.
He's spamming you.
I can't do the debate this week because I have three separate exams for my classes, as well as two extracurricular competitions, lol. I have not changed my mind in any way whatsoever - I simply do not want to forfeit 4 rounds.
I'm defending him because it seems like you're irrationally attacking him. I tend to dislike irrational attacks, regardless of who they're on.
I'm down to do the debate sometime, probably not this week tho.
"He didn't explain why he couldn't complete the round"
I would think that it was implied by his waiving - he simply ran out of time.
"He didn't apologise for not completing it"
He said "my bad."
"He didn't say anything but "boop" (including after I asked him what was going on)'
He apologized for his waiving, and was considerate enough to waive instead of forfeiting in the first place.
Yes, it is an implicit challenge if you care to accept it.
BTW, waiving is slightly rude, but it was considerate of him to at least not forfeit.
Contrary to popular belief, some people have lives outside of this site. Also BTW, your resolution is so poorly articulated it could be defeated by a few paragraphs.
Well, I would think the explanation is fairly simple - he was running low on time, and didn't want to rudely forfeit, so he just waived a round.
Will be voting by end of today
Perhaps, in hindsight, it was a poor decision to make the argument time two hours.
I'll probably vote on this later, as one of the votes here (not going to name names) appears to be insufficient.
Define "repeated delusions" and "compulsive lying".
Since I don't have the same information that Novice does, I'm afraid I can't accept. However, I offer a counter-challenge if you're interested in standing by your claims: "THBT Novice_II is of sound mind."
Why yes, that would be the natural consequence when you set the "time for argument" to two weeks.
"I notice you claim I'm projecting and afraid of losing and that's why I keep cowardly challenging Novice to debate. Since he's so very bravely chickening out on defending any of his claims, would you be interested in standing in for him?"
Sure.
OK, after rereading that a few times, I finally get what you mean by "breathing expert" - but it's like, a really weird way to phrase it, bordering on the intentionally malicious. It's like claiming, "I do practical work in my field for 8 hours each day," when you're a somnologist.
And regarding Zoya... obviously, Chauvin was completely in the wrong in that incident. But I thought we were discussing whether Novice is a white supremacist, not whether Derek Chauvin is a racist.
This is the most fun I've had in a 2v2 in a long time. Maybe I should call in reinforcements.
If you bring up a point, it gets refuted, and you don't bring it up again or defend it, I consider it as being dropped. In this case, you brought up Novice's other debates, I pointed out most of them were irrelevant (i.e., non sequitur), and you didn't bring it up again.
*bashes head into wall repeatedly*
*bash*
*bash*
*bash*
Ok, now that we've gotten that out of the way...
"I kinda doubt you read that debate, as Novice got so comically bad he started denying that black people breath!"
I spent 30 minutes reading that debate, since I actually enjoy reading debates. Please respect my time by not lying.
"At one point he even insisted George Floyd was white to try to prove that Chauvin isn't racist "He is also a WHITE MAN, CON lied about him being African American.""
No, Novice was referring to the so-called breathing expert, who was called in court, and was not present during the actual event. The great thing about written records is that it's easy to see who's telling the truth about what happened.
""To establish the facts there, George Floyd had heart disease [17] and at the time of his arrested "Floyd had 11 ng/mL of fentanyl in his system" [18]."
A non-sequitur by Novice that was rightfully penalized by the judges, but irrelevant to Novice's personal views.
""We can never say with 100% certainty what was the ultimate cause of Floyd's death""
Again, a non-sequitur does not equal white supremacy. Try again.
I agree with your assessment of this being a classic case of projection - Barney is so scared of losing, that he projects this fear onto you.
His claim was that:
-Zoya Code was resisting arrest (dropped by you)
-There was no evidence that it was racially motivated (also dropped by you)
Personally I don't really buy it, but if you wanted to really prove anything, you should have actually refuted that second point.
Also, still no evidence of white supremacy, plus you've dropped everything you've said about Novice's other debates, showing that they were a non-sequitur.
Linking a 28,000 character long argument, and then waving at it and saying, "see, Novice said Floyd's death wasn't murder," without giving any specific quotes, is not evidence. Nevertheless, I read through it, and I still found no evidence for your baseless assertion, unless you're going to give me a specific quote from Novice (which I know you won't).
If Novice had said that Black people commit more crimes, therefore they should be more violently handled, then that would be a racist statement. However, it seems to me that he was putting forth that argument in order to support his earlier points about why Chauvin was arresting Black people at a greater rate than population demographics would suggest.
I saw that comment, but I still don't get your point.
What you claimed it to be:
-Novice attacks voters for saying that racism is bad
What it actually is:
-Novice passively-aggressively criticizes voters for ignoring his main points
So it's really two different things.
"We're discussing someone who would insist such such a person can't be racist, because murder doesn't count as murder if the victim is black..."
LINKIES PLEASE FFS
"And outside the debate he called anyone who considers racism against blacks a bad thing to be "close minded.""
Linkies please.
I've said it before, I'll say it again - having wrong, unsourced, or biased opinions regarding controversial topics does not make you a white supremacist.
I read that debate, and it seemed to come down to semantics, as well as the reasonable burden of proof. Novice claimed that it needed to be shown that Chauvin acted with intentional racism in that moment - you claimed that a past history of racist actions was more than enough. Nowhere in that debate did Novice claim that:
-Floyd deserved his death
-Chauvin's actions were justified
-Chauvin hadn't done anything wrong
-etc...
I simply don't consider your claims of Novice being a white supremacist anything more than a baseless ad hominem.
Didn't he beat oromagi in their animal agriculture debate?
I mean, he's debated oromagi twice, which is two more times than Barney.
Who would win in a race then? xD
"Drilling down, you practically get him defending lynching as not racist because it's what black people deserve."
OK. Prove it.
I'd like to publicly represent and defend Barney.
Please ignore my client's ravings against Novice - it's probably a symptom of excessive stress, brought on by months of running away.
Check out how Barney claims that stating facts = promoting white supremacy, lol.
Again, there's a far cry between extravagant lies and being schizophrenic/mentally ill.
And with regard to the links you provided...
Disagreeing with affirmative action, does not make you a white supremacist (unless you're implying that I'm one).
With the Derek Chauvin debate, I read through that. While I found Novice's claims less than convincing, there was no indication of espousing White supremacy - he was merely claiming that Chauvin's actions were not motivated by racism.
Disliking the BLM riots, which have caused more harm than good, does not make you a white supremacist.
Claiming that there are reasons for disparities in police actions, other than racism, does not make you a white supremacist.
And for the white nationalism debate, Novice was not the instigator - so there's no real indication that it's his true beliefs. In fact, his argument makes perfect sense if he's only trying to win the debate.
Ibid for the last five.
If saying unsourced claims makes a person batshit crazy, then so are you - show me evidence of Novice's racist statements.
For real?
I mean, I don't expect Barney to be nice to Novice, but I think calling him a "batshit crazy white supremacist" goes too far. You're entitled to your opinion, though.
I disagree with Novice's opinion as much as the next guy, but I do dislike seeing 2v1's, so time to jump in.
Frankly, I find it shameful for you to call Novice "a batshit crazy white supremacist." This is a debate site, dedicated to the free and open exchange of opinions. To call someone that is a serious accusation, that needs to be backed up with concrete evidence, not just a single debate a while ago (and for all we know, it might not even represent Novice's true opinions).
You banned (or at the very least, contributed to the ban of) Polytheist-Witch for "extravagant lies," which apparently counted as any unsourced accusation. Are you not doing the same thing now? As a member of the mod team, you ought to be held to a higher standard than a regular user, as you represent what's supposed to be the best of this site.
Novice may or may not be a better debater than you are (I suspect he would win with a balanced resolution, although it'd be quite close), but he deserves respect as much as anyone else. I am on team Novice here.