Total votes: 40
i want de credits
fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff
uwu
hehe
ff but imo forfeiting is better than f and fa word.
ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff
haha ff go brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ff
Pro decides to remove a definition, con says that's truism, and half the debate is forfeited.
What kind of stupidity do we find here?
███████╗███████╗
██╔════╝██╔════╝
█████╗░░█████╗░░
██╔══╝░░██╔══╝░░
██║░░░░░██║░░░░░
╚═╝░░░░░╚═╝░░░░░
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
FFFFFFFFFFFFF
FFFFFFFFFFFFF
FFFFFFFFFFFFF
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
FFFFFFFFFFFFF
FFFFFFFFFFFFF
FFFFFFFFFFFFF
Con gave a reason. Pro gave non.
1 > 0
con argued pro
con argued pro,
pro pointed out
end of debate
nobody argued anything but still 0 > -1.
__ ________ ________
[ | | _ __ | | _ __ |
| | _ .--. .--. , --. .--. | |_ \_| | |_ \_|
| | [ ` .-. .-. | `'_\ : / .'`\ \ | _| | _|
| | | | | || | // | |, | \__. | _| |_ _| |_
[___][___||__||__]\'-;__/ ' .__.' |_____| |_____|
>80% on both, but pro said smth.
ok
r1
- P describes only Joker (why only joker?) physical appearance and traits
- P says that Batman violates rights, sacrifices others to save ppl
- C says Gotham Knight is better
- C shows how Batman's morality changes in Deflector device.
- C says batman gave up this abaility, doesn't want to kill others.
r2
- P says GK is animated, DK is action w/lighting and plot
- P says DK was in ra real city, with real bg and people.
- C refutes saying DK was also good graphics, and also mentalities of characters
- C says GK had diversity in mentality and changing of ppl
r3
- P repeats point about DK having better graphics despite not citing anything or providing too much logic there.
- C clear example with GK not bein a clear "direct" good/evil, with an example of Batman in the sewer, businessman killing women, boy in gang, and Batman himself having ambiguous characters.
Arg - C
I'd say C victory here. C listed examples of reasoning in both r1 and r3, while P simply just stated reasons with little elaboration.
Src - tie
C used 1 source to tell audience what GK is.
P used none.
I can't really give points for that, since 1 source was not exactly used for an arg.
Leg - tie
ok on both
Cond - tie
ok on both
ok
C = con, P = pro, don't need to state but ok
r1
- P has stats with men being larger than woman
- P shows that transitioning male parts to female parts still has some advantage
- transgender woman winning 8/9, beating world record by 45 kg.
- swinning wo with full 1.75 secs
- track and field accomplishments
Meanwhile
- C questions conclusion (mistype by P)
- only considering 5'5" males (C, people are taller :/)
- C mentions weight classes in boxing (only 1 sport ??)
- considers hormones not unfair advantage because training too still can be an "unfair advantage"
Exceptional P arg, C does miss a few variables in arg.
r2
- P acknowledges orig spelling mmistake
- P says example given by C is not a biological advantage
- P shows C dodge da few examples
- P shows C misinterprets sports as "sabotaging somebody's success"
- P shows C contradicted themselves in boxing example beacuse women have advantages over other women (biological), showing an "unfair advantage" due to hormones
- P shows skill =/= hormones
- P shows C shows bad examples
Meanwhile
C ff'ed
r3
Pro extends
Con refutes
- C accusses cis women play in a rigged competition (which is a bit... jumping to conclusions, given that C is not providing reasons)
- C uses example of 4 trans small + 1 cis vs medium and large, which is essentially comparing apples to oranges.
- C shows victor vs not victor in sports, but fails to acknowledge talent (or something along those lines).
- C substitutes sabotage for beat. Makes 0 sense.
- C ack's that somebody has to be unsuccessful.
- C tries to use a "frog in the well example" with trans vs trans and cis vs cis, without grouping them together.
- C repeats point about physical fitness, does not consider hormones or refute that either.
- C shows large guy vs small guy example, which makes sense, but that isn't exactly the topic of argument.
- C brings up the example of big vs small, without comparing cis vs trans.
Clear P victory. C had multiple fallacies, and continously failed to acknowledge cis vs trans differneces, which is essential to this debate. Also, continues to repeat examples of hypothetical downsizing of trans female abilities and magnifying cis female abilities. This is essentially pointing out a needle in a haystack. C did not really point out the bigger picture. P used sources. C did not. Simple. C even forefitted a round (=33%).
On a side note:
C, you definitely need to improve your formatting throughout your debates. It is very unreadable, only able to differentate P args vs ur refutals through a singular " at the start. Not cool!
If this were multiple criterion I would've made it a 7 point loss (args = P b/c C had fallacies, src = P since C had no sources, leg = P since C formatting is an eyesore, cond = P since C ff'ed 33%. I did format this vote like that until I realized it was only winner selection.
Well done P.
ok arg by arg lets go
r1
P says bop and AI. Arguing AI is developing and unknown potentials through deep learning. Also ref. AI talking to each other unknown to human language.
- Deepfakes
- Scamming
- Decline of jobs for blue-collar workers.
C says 5 args:
- easier work through replacing human worker since task is difficult
- more productive for better research and art
- better education than human teachers
- safety in cars
- business can implement AI if they want.
looks good on both ends. R2 time.
r2
P doubts work is an actual problem
- explains 10 ppl losing job (why 10 P?)
- low skill positions replaced through AI
- lose writing ability (although doesn't acknowledge writing abilities of AI as a "skill")?
- more production = economic recession <-- I'd say this is slippery slope since no sources provided.
- safety is at risk since error free is unknown
- refutes rights of a business arg based on other args (which is a fine tactic.)
C:
- Generalizes AI is for worker to lose job, although doesn't acknowledge how ppl will get income with no work (1/2 problem is solved, 1/2 problem causes more problems)
- AI has fast writing = more books, existing writers compete for using AI (so writers use AI to write, instead of writing themselves.. ok arg i guess)
- Overproduction doesn't exist but no source provided to justify, i guess is okay since C does say it can benefit poor countries (acknowledge trading prices please lol)
- Humans increase safety of AI (how?).
- Layoffs dont matter not working is ok, and AI can solve poverty through more production? (still doesn't acknowledge how people will get income!!!)
some details missed on both args, not everything accounted for, but okay I guess.
r3
P essentially repeats all R1 args (which prob is unecessary) but pro does include more examples. I guess I'll give benefit of the doubt here.
- P defines overproduction as in the dictionary, and talks about 1920s boom
- fix to AI is shut down and rewrite programming (P why are you arguing C's side here)
- P says debate is whether or not it should be done
Now here's the funny thing. C already justified why AI in work is okay. P is just avoiding saying an arg and keeps saying that C doesn't justify if it should or not be done.
I guess C just ended it with a summary and no rebuttals.
Interesting debate, lemme compile my notes
I'd say arg was mostly equal on both ends. P and C had a pretty good r1, few fallacies and not all variables accounted for in r2, and a summary r3 i guess.
Both sides I'd say had an equal strength of argument, fallacy, and rebuttal. Tie there.
P used sources but had worse legibility, so I'll give this one a tie.
https://y.yarn.co/c6ae5453-e0f6-405b-8367-16faf05005f1_text.gif
Debate summary:
P = pro, C = con. CA = counter argment. 1WG = 1 world government
R1
P: peace, no global issues, cooperation. P Ack's challenges, and uses evidence to talk about .. more additional points?
- combat tax evasion, health, rights, environment, space
C shows that all world conquerings failed, no balance, "nothing good", and unity is "impossible" given historic envence
R2:
P:
Counterargs:
CA 1: - doesn't refute well. Although essentially truism it doesn't account for the fact that we don't even know a single step forward
CA 2: - says based on the US, does't say which fields checks/balances would be in, although better than CA 1
CA 3: - ack no unity, but instantly avoids the question by thinking it is peaceful. This CA is more nuanced, so I guess it is valid here since it does talk about global collaboration. This satisfies "achievement" of unity, but fails to respond to "maintainence"
CA 4: - well-responded, talking about specific areas that can show a one-world government bringing "something good".
(So 1.5/4 CA's were actual CA's. I guess this isn't bad for AI.)
C:
- cooperation can't exist if there is 1 person because that means people have to make 2 opposite decisions
- UN/EU is not a 1WG, because it is made up of multiple govs
- US has divisions, any modeling would impose views
- can't satisfy 2 sides with 1 gov
ALl of those are good, but:
- last CA wasn't satisfied to well, simply stating that 1 world gov becomes corrupt (no evidence ??)
R3:
I feel I can sum up P's R3 as that P keeps assuming that 1WG has collaboration, when collaboration with 1 identity is not possible.
C basically repeats points P didn't refute too well
R4:
_please stop referring cooperation P!_ cooperation by default is 2+ people. I guess coordination can come along these lines.
C refers autonomy not being possible to make a 1WG, shows 200 > 1 in terms of corruption vs autonomy
R5:
P focuses on what a 1WG CAN do, POTENTIAL benefits. P also avoids the debate topic by mentioning a balance between individual countries and 1WG.
However I do agree with P that neither side has any evidence/sources. P does say "There is nothing that one-world government can do that governments today can't,", but I think this might be strawmanning C's arg.
C goes back and claims that P didn't realy answer the question, instead talked about multiple gov/countries, and did not talk about harmful effects like corruption.
I guess AI did this debate, but all said and considered:
Arg:
P did not truly answer question, while C identified multiple risks of a 1WG, and inability to form together as a 1WG. P keeps bringing up cooperation....
Src:
All C had to do was link a wikipeida article or smth and get the free 2 points; ig not.
Leg:
Leaning C, but entirely AI generated by P so I guess its valid?
Cond:
ok on both
A: con
S: tie
L: tie
C: tie
haha ff go brrrrrrrrrrr
This entire debate happened within 90 minutes.
Interesting.
I'll analyze this round by round.
R1:
Pro provides definitions, and cites bible. However Pro also makes the broad generalization "religion is the exclusive authority on morality" with no proof of that at all.
Con shows multiple scenarios where abortion may be necessary (If I can count correctly, 10).
R2:
Pro cites bible (2x). And cites ted cruz to argue not living is better than living, only using a quote with minimal explanation/reasoning...
Con shows two scenarios where not living may be better than living.
R3:
Pro: "First, any debate concerned with morality is religious per se.". This is certainly moving the goalpost, but I can't really tell if it moves the goalpost for arguments, or for sources (e.g. suddenly restricting sources to only religious sources). Either way, it is still a logical fallacy. Also he cites Inferno and Mere Christianity. Keep in mind one is fiction and one is an authors opinion. Again, with no explanation, simply citing a source.
Con refutes morality through contradiction and acknowledges pro had moved the goalpost of the debate from "abortion is always immoral" to "religion is moral" (him arguing con, of course).
ok now time for voting.
Args: You can't just cite a source and expect that to be an argument. You actually need explanation. Not only that, you also can't move the BOP/debate through moving the goalpost. Pro did these two, so points to CON for delivering justified args (and not moving the goalpost).
Src: I guess pro used sources, while con didn't use any. Although not really used correctly, still points to pro on that.
leg: ok on both
cond: ok on both
final:
A: con
S: pro
L: tie
C: tie
"one letter counts for your argument".
h.
"one letter counts for your argument".
h.
"one letter counts for your argument".
h.
very nice 1/10 arg debate... congrats to con for actually saying something.
Arg:
- Pro references yin/yang without giving prior definitions prior to the debate. Since the 10 intellect types were provided by pro, this is essentially moving the goalpost. You can't define things after the debate started. Con effectly argued this in round 3 with the abortion example, as well as the boss payment example.
- Pro says "Con's argument was almost equivalent to a forfeit. He doesn't understand the types, he was just looking for a cheap excuse to say "I win"." when he's doing exactly what his bop says: getting at least 1 reason why humans don't fit into the 10 intellect types.
- Round 3: "instead of seeking clarification on a theory I didn't fully explain"... isn't the whole point of a debate to fully explain your position? You're basically offering to move the goalpost... Not cool!
Con is the only one who made arguments. Pro failed to defend. Pro had one last chance to defned his arguments in round 3, but simply failing to prove his BOP by referencing other points that make his stance true (unrelated to what has been argued thus far), rather than refuting CON's args. Arg points to CON, for actually satisfying his BOP.
Src: none used by any
Leg: both are fine.
Conduct:
- Pro: I'm a lazy son of a bitch (debates are professional keep that in mind...)
not gonna let that pass.. You can't just self-roast in the middle of a debate.
Conclusion:
A: con
S: tie
L: tie
C: con
I feel throughout this entire debate PRO didn't formally introduce their arguments with definitions. R1 Pro claims " She towered over her opponents and clearly had the male biological advantage"
But instantly drops this argument in R2 with "Some people are born with genetic advantages like height, strength or speed. We have decided as a society that within your sex we do not classify those as unfair advantages". :(
Additionally PRO jumps a bit to conclusions in args.
Let's look at R2:
"If sex no longer matters let ALL men and women compete together" (there is no founding/development of this claim, just outright said".
However, CON's args have thorough founding:
"No. What matters is the category by results. For example, 7 year old will not compete against a 20 year old, even if they have same sex. This is because we know that 20 year old would win almost every time. Therefore, the standards are set according to results, not according to some random picking.
Therefore, if female trans shows similar results as other females, there is no reason to not allow female trans to compete with those other females. If results are similar, there is no advantage for female trans. There are cases where results are similar. There are cases where there is no advantage for female trans.
It is nonsense to claim that every female trans is better than every female non-trans."
(through listing examples).
Similar case in R5:
"If we are going to eliminate sex as what divides competition then men and women should just compete together
Which would mean women never win championships again"
PRO doesn't define how women will never win the championships again through combining men and women.
Yet con:
"Well, sports are to be separated in groups by results.
Some trans female girls have similar results as non-trans female girls.
Therefore, no need to separate those trans female girls from non-trans female girls."
Clear P1, P2, and C1 here. Full points to CON.
pro ff go brrrr
Ok yes but con ffed >= 40% after they mentioned they couldn’t do the next round
Pov: I didn’t understand the topic but both sides ffed
green things are bad
the debate happened...
R1 roasts were definitely good on both ends, but I think Con's response to Pro's roasts in basically all subsequent rounds were lacking a bit more depth when expecting a comeback from Pro's roasts. Win to Pro.
Ok, yes, full ff happened.
But pro did nothing...
Tldr; don't make arg time 2 hours.
full forefit?!?!!?
This is an interesting debate, although the question of "dysfunctional" provokes an interesting subdebate:
That "subdebate" was more or so like this
> CON says dysfunctional is not functioning properly, but there is no social norm because only 1 society exists (logic is correct here)
> PRO implies that more than one society exists, and thus our society can be dysfunctional due to anti-social behaviors
> CON asks PRO to define dysfunctional
> PRO defines dysfunctional and society, proving that they don't contradict and an individual human can be dysfunctional per PRO's definition
> CON questions PRO's source of definition
> PRO mentions that a google search reveals that Oxford Languages provided the definition
However, CON provided his definition of dysfunctional in round 1, without a source? (lol)
Yet I'd say CON would win the "subdebate" here since he pointed out that it is unreasonable to assume a source when not provided.
I'd suggest to PRO next debate to a) define necessary terms within the first round itself and b) provide sources (links) to where the definition came from.
CON also repeats that 1 society cannot be abnormal because there is only 1 society, and that would be considered "normal society".
CON satisfied his BOP. PRO has not yet because he mainly just argues the definition of dysfunctional, rather than actually arguing how society is dysfunctional.
Also PRO, when you say CON's debate intentions are "moreover to deflect away and come up with abstract interpretations in the hopes that you ‘win’ the debate."
... Definitions, topic statements, a true meaning of a title need to be adequately defined for a debate to resume, this is usually done by the R1 instigator since that is the first actual words of a debate.
CON wins here since he had the better argument and PRO ff'ed R5.