BTW I knew you were using Chat-GPT in our debate. Your style seemed extremely generic and unspecific, so I was suspicious. I pasted your argument into an AI-text-detector, which found there was about a 90% probability you were using a textbot.
I didn't bring it up since you forfeited the debate, but now that you confessed to it, I might as well mention it.
I'd love to have a legitimate debate over the ethics and morality of abortion - I'm afraid I'm rather busy at present, but I'd be interested in accepting in the future.
I see where you're coming from. However, my overall stance, throughout the debate from R1-R3, was simply:
-A death penalty case inherently requires more appeals and a longer process
-More appeals and a longer process causes trauma to the victim's family
-Hence, the death penalty is undesirable
-LWOP causes less trauma to the victim's family
-Hence, LWOP is more desirable than the death penalty
-LWOP (and the justice system) is flawed
-The death penalty wastes money
-The money can be used to improve the LWOP trial process
So I don't really see any internal contradiction. Anyway, I'm not asking for you to change your vote, just trying to set the record straight. Thanks for your time and consideration.
One objection though - where exactly did I say that I "wanted to do away with all those useless trials, which make it more difficult to murder an innocent person."
I checked my arguments, so I'm a little bit confused where that came from.
I appreciate the detailed vote, but I do have two small objections to your vote.
First of all, you mentioned that my argument was "based on my own interpretation of what was a debate site vs a discussion site." Aren't all semantic arguments fundamentally based on interpretation? This doesn't make them any less valid.
I supported my interpretation, and the resultant exclusion of Kialo, based on a reliable educational source that clarified the distinction between a debate and a discussion. I then used these distinctions in order to demonstrate why Kialo did not qualify as a debate website.
Although I admit that there is always some room for leeway for definitional arguments, the main reason why I think my argument holds up is that my opponent failed to convincingly demonstrate that Kialo is a debate website.
Kialo calls itself a debate site. This is fine. But in these situations, we have to apply the "duck test." If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and looks like a duck, then maybe, just maybe, it is a duck. Furthermore, I also provided a quote by Kialo's founder that Kialo is a "collaborative reasoning tool." This clearly fits the definition of "discussion" more than the definition of "debate" (both of which I provided).
Second of all, and this is my more major objection, DDO is valid as a comparison, not an example.
The resolution mentions "current debate sites." However, I was using DDO as an example of what is "usual, expected, or desirable." It was merely a benchmark for comparison.
When comparing the quality or condition of current things, it's natural to use the past as a tried-and-tested benchmark - just like if I was comparing whether a president was good or bad, I would compare his performance to past presidents.
"It is common knowledge that if you forfeit the set number of arguments without letting the person know that you are going to forfeit that round, is losing. "
IDK why you think it's a truism, most reliable sources are against me on this. I'll debate you later on the condition that you don't mention "sporange," since I don't feel like ping-ponging sources.
Honestly, PRO could have nailed me if he focused on the "want" part. After all, there's nothing wrong with someone "wanting" something - this would also have made my real-life impacts irrelevant.
That's great to hear - I don't really spend a lot of time on soft sciences, since I plan to major in civil engineering someday. It's impressive you've managed to tackle such a thorny topic in your free time.
Anyway, ik my style of debating is a bit annoying - I do IRL debate, and focused on semantics and greater-impact arguments (the idea that I don't need to rebut your arguments if my argument's impact is overall greater). My knowledge of biochemistry is limited to basic biology and Wikipedia, so I needed to try a different route if I wanted to win this.
If you ever want to have a two-way discussion on legalization of cannabis (a topic I'm interested in), feel free to DM me - I'm pretty friendly outside of debate rounds.
I apologize if my tone came off as a little bit condescending; it was simply annoying for me to accept a debate, only to realize that the topic you thought you were creating was different than the topic I thought I was accepting.
Are you going to aim for Derail Topic Any%?
*mild confusion*
Looking forward to this. I'll probably drop a vote.
He's certainly not going to change it to the first one.
Judging by many of his past comments, I'm pretty sure he's not joking.
IDK about boxing either, but I'll try to give it a vote.
BTW I knew you were using Chat-GPT in our debate. Your style seemed extremely generic and unspecific, so I was suspicious. I pasted your argument into an AI-text-detector, which found there was about a 90% probability you were using a textbot.
I didn't bring it up since you forfeited the debate, but now that you confessed to it, I might as well mention it.
In all my time on this website, this is the first time I've ever seen a vote with points split like that.
With your definitions, technically killing an insect would be "murder." There's no way that your definitions correspond with the legal definitions.
Also the definitions are a little bit rigged - I've never seen a definition of murder like that.
I'd love to have a legitimate debate over the ethics and morality of abortion - I'm afraid I'm rather busy at present, but I'd be interested in accepting in the future.
I look forward to the vote - thanks in advance.
"then it stands to reason only guilty people get the death penalty anyways"
I'm pretty sure I refuted that with my 4.1% statistic - as far as I'm aware, CON failed to counter that.
I see where you're coming from. However, my overall stance, throughout the debate from R1-R3, was simply:
-A death penalty case inherently requires more appeals and a longer process
-More appeals and a longer process causes trauma to the victim's family
-Hence, the death penalty is undesirable
-LWOP causes less trauma to the victim's family
-Hence, LWOP is more desirable than the death penalty
-LWOP (and the justice system) is flawed
-The death penalty wastes money
-The money can be used to improve the LWOP trial process
So I don't really see any internal contradiction. Anyway, I'm not asking for you to change your vote, just trying to set the record straight. Thanks for your time and consideration.
Thanks for the vote - I appreciate the feedback.
One objection though - where exactly did I say that I "wanted to do away with all those useless trials, which make it more difficult to murder an innocent person."
I checked my arguments, so I'm a little bit confused where that came from.
Thank you; I look forward to the vote.
Bump for votes
I appreciate the detailed vote, but I do have two small objections to your vote.
First of all, you mentioned that my argument was "based on my own interpretation of what was a debate site vs a discussion site." Aren't all semantic arguments fundamentally based on interpretation? This doesn't make them any less valid.
I supported my interpretation, and the resultant exclusion of Kialo, based on a reliable educational source that clarified the distinction between a debate and a discussion. I then used these distinctions in order to demonstrate why Kialo did not qualify as a debate website.
Although I admit that there is always some room for leeway for definitional arguments, the main reason why I think my argument holds up is that my opponent failed to convincingly demonstrate that Kialo is a debate website.
Kialo calls itself a debate site. This is fine. But in these situations, we have to apply the "duck test." If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and looks like a duck, then maybe, just maybe, it is a duck. Furthermore, I also provided a quote by Kialo's founder that Kialo is a "collaborative reasoning tool." This clearly fits the definition of "discussion" more than the definition of "debate" (both of which I provided).
Second of all, and this is my more major objection, DDO is valid as a comparison, not an example.
The resolution mentions "current debate sites." However, I was using DDO as an example of what is "usual, expected, or desirable." It was merely a benchmark for comparison.
When comparing the quality or condition of current things, it's natural to use the past as a tried-and-tested benchmark - just like if I was comparing whether a president was good or bad, I would compare his performance to past presidents.
R1 SOURCES:
1: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/debate
2: Oxford Languages Dictionary
3: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/condition
4: https://www.uopeople.edu/blog/debate-and-discussion/
5: https://www.kialo.com/static/FT-Meet_the_start-up_that_wants_to_sell_you_civilised_debate.pdf
6: https://www.kialo.com/should-there-be-a-universal-basic-income-ubi-1634
7: https://www.kialo.com/the-existence-of-god-2629
8: https://www.kialo.com/are-arranged-marriages-better-than-love-marriages-16340
9: https://www.debateart.com/debates/4050-islam-is-not-a-good-religion
10: https://www.debateart.com/debates/4032-cannabis-is-not-risk-free-and-isn-t-especially-medical-applicable
11: https://www.debateart.com/debates/3958-my-view-abortion-is-wrong-cons-view-abortion-is-right
12: https://www.debateart.com/leaderboard/debates
13: https://web.archive.org/web/20220309150623/https://www.debate.org/about/demographics/
14: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/8374-remember-me-real-murky-memory-there-oh-you-do-nice
15: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/8640-official-endorsement-for-wylted-as-president-by-presidential-candidate-vermin-supreme
16: https://www.debateart.com/debates/3025-dart-vs-ddo
"I am a very destructive debater, my skill is in destroying my enemies and crippling them more than building my own case brilliantly."
Shared burden of proof moment
I'd bet 3-1 I could win this as CON against you
The resolution needs a lot of clarification IMO. What part of it is misunderstood? Misunderstood by whom?
Thank you for the excellent vote.
It was basically your entire argument too...
The main problem with your contention against RM's morality argument is that you did the exact same thing.
R1 QUOTE: "In the same way, it should be illegal to get an abortion, because it is morally wrong."
So why is only PRO allowed to use morality arguments?
Because of the debate format, or the resolution?
I'd bet 10-1 that the moderators aren't going to back you up.
"It is common knowledge that if you forfeit the set number of arguments without letting the person know that you are going to forfeit that round, is losing. "
What common knowledge?
Objection!
IDK why you think it's a truism, most reliable sources are against me on this. I'll debate you later on the condition that you don't mention "sporange," since I don't feel like ping-ponging sources.
bvump vot fors
R1 SOURCES:
1: https://tradingeconomics.com/turkey/gdp
2: https://tradingeconomics.com/greece/gdp
3: https://tradingeconomics.com/turkey/exports/united-states
4: https://tradingeconomics.com/greece/exports/united-states
5:https://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.php?country_id=turkey
6: https://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.php?country_id=greece
It's an interesting topic, I'll try to drop a vote on it when it finishes.
Ngl, I would hardly call your last comment "deescalating."
This is going to escalate...
*Drops a friendly message asking for votes last night*
*Comes back to a warzone in the comments*
Yep, a normal day at DebateArt.
Care to drop a vote?
I could say the same for you.
Indeed, the fact that many people still think there are only two genders is unfortunate.
R3 SOURCES:
1: https://debate.uvm.edu/NFL/rostrumlib/cxkbennett0496.pdf
2: tiny.cc/Kritik
3: https://mbhsdebate.wixsite.com/debate/kritik
Extend all sources from previous rounds.
Honestly, PRO could have nailed me if he focused on the "want" part. After all, there's nothing wrong with someone "wanting" something - this would also have made my real-life impacts irrelevant.
Care to vote?
That's great to hear - I don't really spend a lot of time on soft sciences, since I plan to major in civil engineering someday. It's impressive you've managed to tackle such a thorny topic in your free time.
Anyway, ik my style of debating is a bit annoying - I do IRL debate, and focused on semantics and greater-impact arguments (the idea that I don't need to rebut your arguments if my argument's impact is overall greater). My knowledge of biochemistry is limited to basic biology and Wikipedia, so I needed to try a different route if I wanted to win this.
If you ever want to have a two-way discussion on legalization of cannabis (a topic I'm interested in), feel free to DM me - I'm pretty friendly outside of debate rounds.
Out of curiosity, did you major in biochemistry or a similar field? That's the sort of impression I get from reading your arguments.
Ngl I should try this, pretty effective noob bait
Seconded
I apologize if my tone came off as a little bit condescending; it was simply annoying for me to accept a debate, only to realize that the topic you thought you were creating was different than the topic I thought I was accepting.
says who?
R1 SOURCES:
1: https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-first-drug-comprised-active-ingredient-derived-marijuana-treat-rare-severe-forms
2: https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa1714631
3: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1611618
4: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7653733/
5: https://jnnp.bmj.com/content/87/9/944
6: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22509985/
7: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16553576/
8: https://dravetsyndromenews.com/dravet-syndrome-prognosis/
Really not helping your case there with "the center of the world" comment.