It's an intentional change IIRC, since the contender hadn't completed the required qualification of completing five debates (in order to create a rated one). Personally I dislike how it applies retroactively, I think it's sort of unfair.
Since I'll be challenging you on this account (I think a 2v2 is allowed as long as its unrated), I'll have a chance to filter out the worst bits of trash talk... hopefully.
A 2v1 isn't exactly fair... someone has to stick up for Mps. IMO he is someone who has a lot of knowledge, and is confident of that. From my conversations with him, I can tell that although his tone may come off as condescending, he doesn't mean it - he's simply self-assured.
I propose a fair debate to settle this once and for all. Mps and I vs Lancelot and TWS, on the topic of either psychoactive drugs or climate change. Mps will provide the knowledge and research, I'll provide the structure, sourcing, and formality. Do ya'll accept?
I was deeply impressed by your simple, yet elegant and concise, second-round argument. Not only did it address every single one of my points with thorough and undeniable rebuttals, it also expounded and clarified your first-round arguments with delicate yet to-the-point prose. 10/10, would debate again.
Barney forgot to delete mps1213's vote the first time, so it was *not* removed and reposted. I just checked my notifications, and it said that a vote had been deleted from this debate only once (i.e, 10 minutes ago). Please take this into consideration.
To start off, the burden of proof in this debate is clearly on PRO. Not only is he the instigator and the claimant, he is also making a claim that goes against the status quo (I.e., the common understanding the actual risks of global warming is accurate).
Let’s analyze it round by round.
R1: PRO starts off with an argument that CO2 is necessary. This argument is irrelevant, as the fact that some CO2 is necessary for life doesn’t negate that too much CO2 is bad for life.
His second argument is that the correlation between CO2 and global warming is unproven. Although usually a claim that something is unproven doesn’t need a source, in this case, because he is ignoring widespread scientific consensus that the link is proven, he needs some strong proof. PRO fails to provide this.
His third argument is that the effects of climate change have been exaggerated, and provides a link to prove this. This looks somewhat convincing, so I’ll see how CON responds to this.
His fourth argument is that the sea level catastrophe is fabricated. Again, I’ll see CON’s response.
His fifth argument is that the worries are causing more problems than they’re solving. This is irrelevant, as the societal net harms/benefits of taking action on climate change are outside the scope of this debate.
Now onto CON, who quickly makes short work of arguments one and two.
He then shows how CO2 (and global warming) is a serious enough threat that the risks are significant (and therefore not exaggerated), so he wins argument three.
He refutes argument four with a counter-source... some back-and-forth here, I’ll see how PRO responds.
Furthermore, he presents a very strong constructive case about the enormous risks of global warming if it is ignored.
R2: PRO switches gears and focuses on media perception. He completely drops his R1 args, so I’ll treat them as refuted by CON. He also dropped CON’s R1 args, so I’ll treat them as uncontested by PRO.
CON points out that PRO is straying from the resolution in terms of what risks he’s claiming are exaggerated. Also, that political grandstanding doesn’t change the environmental risks of global warming.
R3: PRO forfeits and CON extends.
R4: PRO waives (de facto) and CON doesn’t forfeit.
It started off pretty well, but losing 2 rounds of a 4 round debate, after dropping pretty much every single R1 argument, was too much. CON’s points on the risks of global warming went uncontested, while PRO’s points were refuted as irrelevant, poorly sourced, or simply false.
Sources:
Both sides did their due diligence with sources. Although PRO used more of them, he had a greater burden of proof, so it balances out.
S/G:
OK from both sides.
Conduct:
PRO forfeit, so it goes to CON.
Feedback:
To PRO:
Try to stick to the resolution, and focus more about specific, impactful examples of exaggerated risks. Keep your case simple – don’t gish gallop points that are very easily refuted. Also, don’t overstretch yourself – if you had a good R3 and R4, it wouldn’t have been too late to mount a comeback.
To CON:
You had some great points – try to keep them organized and clear. Also, when refuting your opponent’s points, try adding block quotes so it’s clear what you’re replying too.
While your personal experience is definitely relevant, I would recommend putting it in a separate section from the arguments analyzed in the debate, and making it clear that it's just your own opinion and doesn't factor into your judging. Just some feedback in case you want to improve your vote. Thanks for your effort and time regardless.
The resolution seems fair - I would prefer if the "time for argument" was set to 1 week, so both sides have more time to make higher-quality arguments.
Thanks for the link. In that case, I'll go for more a constructive discussion since it is a legitimately interesting topic (I was very tempted to "Kritik" the topic based on the misspelling in rule 1, but I feel that would be in poor taste).
Well, I was planning to save my points for the actual debate round, but I'd be fine with having a little discussion in the comments. It would probably help me plan out my case anyway.
Your "escape velocity" concept doesn't really make sense. Extending life expectancy doesn't simply mean that you "add" a year to your life. For example, many of the gains in life expectancy in modern times have been a result of reduced childhood mortality. While completely eliminating childhood mortality would likely add several years to life expectancy, it wouldn't change yours. Similarly, many treatments only work on those of a younger age.
I suppose if we're still using space terminology here, we could term it as "event horizon" - the age at which no level of medical advances can keep you alive long enough to see new ones.
For starters, I can see a minor problem with your first paragraph: by your logic, if I kill myself at the age of 20, I've reduced my life expectancy by 60 (from 80, the national average or so). Therefore, if I don't kill myself, I will live to 140.
So you think that anyone who is:
a. accused of multiple murders
b. proven to be guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt
should receive the DP? I could see a few problems with that...
In what circumstances would it be necessary?
What are your opinions on the death penalty, out of curiosity?
How am I affecting ratings unnecessarily?
Full forfeit, pls vote
It's an intentional change IIRC, since the contender hadn't completed the required qualification of completing five debates (in order to create a rated one). Personally I dislike how it applies retroactively, I think it's sort of unfair.
Glad to hear that.
As long as you get your response in before the 3-day round deadline, it doesn't affect things.
Although I do have some personal bias, I promise that my vote will be fair and objective to the debate.
Meh, a case could be made for deliberate provocation. But I do see your justification.
Linkie to comment pls.
Sure.
Since I'll be challenging you on this account (I think a 2v2 is allowed as long as its unrated), I'll have a chance to filter out the worst bits of trash talk... hopefully.
Great, now we just have to wait for the other two.
A 2v1 isn't exactly fair... someone has to stick up for Mps. IMO he is someone who has a lot of knowledge, and is confident of that. From my conversations with him, I can tell that although his tone may come off as condescending, he doesn't mean it - he's simply self-assured.
I propose a fair debate to settle this once and for all. Mps and I vs Lancelot and TWS, on the topic of either psychoactive drugs or climate change. Mps will provide the knowledge and research, I'll provide the structure, sourcing, and formality. Do ya'll accept?
Why does it say, "the instigator is no longer active and cannot participate in the debate" when I try to accept?
I was deeply impressed by your simple, yet elegant and concise, second-round argument. Not only did it address every single one of my points with thorough and undeniable rebuttals, it also expounded and clarified your first-round arguments with delicate yet to-the-point prose. 10/10, would debate again.
ibid
Thanks for the vote. I could have sworn it wasn't there when Lancelot posted his comment... maybe I'm just tripping.
???
I've been quite busy, but I should be able to get to it sometime in the next few
Barney forgot to delete mps1213's vote the first time, so it was *not* removed and reposted. I just checked my notifications, and it said that a vote had been deleted from this debate only once (i.e, 10 minutes ago). Please take this into consideration.
Also forgot to mention, if you have any questions or concerns about my vote, just DM or tag me. I'll try my best to fix them.
Arguments:
To start off, the burden of proof in this debate is clearly on PRO. Not only is he the instigator and the claimant, he is also making a claim that goes against the status quo (I.e., the common understanding the actual risks of global warming is accurate).
Let’s analyze it round by round.
R1: PRO starts off with an argument that CO2 is necessary. This argument is irrelevant, as the fact that some CO2 is necessary for life doesn’t negate that too much CO2 is bad for life.
His second argument is that the correlation between CO2 and global warming is unproven. Although usually a claim that something is unproven doesn’t need a source, in this case, because he is ignoring widespread scientific consensus that the link is proven, he needs some strong proof. PRO fails to provide this.
His third argument is that the effects of climate change have been exaggerated, and provides a link to prove this. This looks somewhat convincing, so I’ll see how CON responds to this.
His fourth argument is that the sea level catastrophe is fabricated. Again, I’ll see CON’s response.
His fifth argument is that the worries are causing more problems than they’re solving. This is irrelevant, as the societal net harms/benefits of taking action on climate change are outside the scope of this debate.
Now onto CON, who quickly makes short work of arguments one and two.
He then shows how CO2 (and global warming) is a serious enough threat that the risks are significant (and therefore not exaggerated), so he wins argument three.
He refutes argument four with a counter-source... some back-and-forth here, I’ll see how PRO responds.
Furthermore, he presents a very strong constructive case about the enormous risks of global warming if it is ignored.
R2: PRO switches gears and focuses on media perception. He completely drops his R1 args, so I’ll treat them as refuted by CON. He also dropped CON’s R1 args, so I’ll treat them as uncontested by PRO.
CON points out that PRO is straying from the resolution in terms of what risks he’s claiming are exaggerated. Also, that political grandstanding doesn’t change the environmental risks of global warming.
R3: PRO forfeits and CON extends.
R4: PRO waives (de facto) and CON doesn’t forfeit.
It started off pretty well, but losing 2 rounds of a 4 round debate, after dropping pretty much every single R1 argument, was too much. CON’s points on the risks of global warming went uncontested, while PRO’s points were refuted as irrelevant, poorly sourced, or simply false.
Sources:
Both sides did their due diligence with sources. Although PRO used more of them, he had a greater burden of proof, so it balances out.
S/G:
OK from both sides.
Conduct:
PRO forfeit, so it goes to CON.
Feedback:
To PRO:
Try to stick to the resolution, and focus more about specific, impactful examples of exaggerated risks. Keep your case simple – don’t gish gallop points that are very easily refuted. Also, don’t overstretch yourself – if you had a good R3 and R4, it wouldn’t have been too late to mount a comeback.
To CON:
You had some great points – try to keep them organized and clear. Also, when refuting your opponent’s points, try adding block quotes so it’s clear what you’re replying too.
Overall, good debate from both sides.
While your personal experience is definitely relevant, I would recommend putting it in a separate section from the arguments analyzed in the debate, and making it clear that it's just your own opinion and doesn't factor into your judging. Just some feedback in case you want to improve your vote. Thanks for your effort and time regardless.
https://openai-openai-detector.hf.space/
99.98% of being AI generated when I entered PRO's R1 conclusion.
Thx for the detailed vote!
Alright, sure.
Bumpskis
The resolution seems fair - I would prefer if the "time for argument" was set to 1 week, so both sides have more time to make higher-quality arguments.
Would you be willing to challenge me to the same topic after you're done with this debate? I'm an ardent supporter of the four-points system.
Why did you tag me?
R1 SOURCES:
1: https://www.nelp.org/publication/u-s-needs-15-minimum-wage/#_edn52
2: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2705499
3: https://www.diversitydatakids.org/research-library/journal-article/families-job-characteristics-and-economic-self-sufficiency
4: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/55681
5: https://humanimpact.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/SB935_HealthAnalysis-1.pdf
6: https://www.thenationshealth.org/content/45/2/1.1.abstract
7: https://www.socialeurope.eu/minimum-wage-us
8: https://www.epi.org/publication/raising-federal-minimum-wage-to-1010/
9: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-effects-of-minimum-wages-on-snap-enrollments-and-expenditures/
10: https://dl.icdst.org/pdfs/files/a0fd722b5a7675bcdb74f9d46a6bda89.pdf
11: https://adia.works/blog/labor-cost-percentage-by-industry/
12: https://www.purdue.edu/research/features/stories/study-raising-wages-to-15-an-hour-for-limited-service-restaurant-employees-would-raise-prices-4-3-percent/
Remind me never to do nested bullet points again. Spent 20 minutes fighting against DebateArt's auto-formatting, idk how oromagi stays sane
Does this qualify as a troll debate?
I can certainly see the circumstantial evidence. Curious to see how Wylted will respond.
(╯°Д°)╯︵/(.□ . \)
Y no conduct points
They're nested, oromagi style, so it's not technically a gish gallop.
I'll try to post my argument tomorrow night. It has about 75 nested bullet points (so yes, I am taking this debate quite seriously).
Thanks for the well-reasoned vote. I do have a few questions though, I'll DM you later.
Pulling the old Pro/Con switcheroo, amirite?
I would prefer "Should the death penalty be abolished," with you as CON and I as PRO, since usually policy debates use the term "abolished."
Would you be willing to debate me on the same topic? I am strongly against the death penalty.
You can probably still win this if you run a semantic case.
Image of a deity (God)? IDK but it seems like a reasonable guess
Thanks for the link. In that case, I'll go for more a constructive discussion since it is a legitimately interesting topic (I was very tempted to "Kritik" the topic based on the misspelling in rule 1, but I feel that would be in poor taste).
Well, I was planning to save my points for the actual debate round, but I'd be fine with having a little discussion in the comments. It would probably help me plan out my case anyway.
Your "escape velocity" concept doesn't really make sense. Extending life expectancy doesn't simply mean that you "add" a year to your life. For example, many of the gains in life expectancy in modern times have been a result of reduced childhood mortality. While completely eliminating childhood mortality would likely add several years to life expectancy, it wouldn't change yours. Similarly, many treatments only work on those of a younger age.
I suppose if we're still using space terminology here, we could term it as "event horizon" - the age at which no level of medical advances can keep you alive long enough to see new ones.
For starters, I can see a minor problem with your first paragraph: by your logic, if I kill myself at the age of 20, I've reduced my life expectancy by 60 (from 80, the national average or so). Therefore, if I don't kill myself, I will live to 140.