Clever argument from Con. The "paradox" turns against Con, though: If you trust Wikipedia's claim that it's not a reliable source of information, then how can you trust Wikipedia that it's not reliable? Wikipedia might be lying to you about the fact that it's not reliable. That means we need to dig deeper & not take Wikipedia at its own word in all circumstances.
I thought Pro had the right idea -- as he argued, "that WiKiPEDiA projects a higher standard for reliable sources than just itself improves WiKiPEDiA's reliability relative to FOX" -- but I guess he failed to emphasize it for the voters. Wikipedia, at the very least, is a reliable source of its own unreliability. Fox, on the other hand, pretends that it's reliable while actively misleading viewers using known cognitive biases & errors. In other words, Wikipedia is more reliable than Fox about the fact of its own unreliability.
I debated this topic recently so I'm biased -- and I can't vote yet anyway -- but I don't see how Pro ever wins if he doesn't show that criminalization leads to less smoking. It's the crux of Pro's side, and there's a lot of potential arguments here that weren't made (e.g. noting increased use of marijuana in states after legalization/regulation). Seldiora needs to work on this, especially since he says it's his strongest topic.
Terrible RFD. But whatever.
Clever argument from Con. The "paradox" turns against Con, though: If you trust Wikipedia's claim that it's not a reliable source of information, then how can you trust Wikipedia that it's not reliable? Wikipedia might be lying to you about the fact that it's not reliable. That means we need to dig deeper & not take Wikipedia at its own word in all circumstances.
I thought Pro had the right idea -- as he argued, "that WiKiPEDiA projects a higher standard for reliable sources than just itself improves WiKiPEDiA's reliability relative to FOX" -- but I guess he failed to emphasize it for the voters. Wikipedia, at the very least, is a reliable source of its own unreliability. Fox, on the other hand, pretends that it's reliable while actively misleading viewers using known cognitive biases & errors. In other words, Wikipedia is more reliable than Fox about the fact of its own unreliability.
I debated this topic recently so I'm biased -- and I can't vote yet anyway -- but I don't see how Pro ever wins if he doesn't show that criminalization leads to less smoking. It's the crux of Pro's side, and there's a lot of potential arguments here that weren't made (e.g. noting increased use of marijuana in states after legalization/regulation). Seldiora needs to work on this, especially since he says it's his strongest topic.
We need a vote on this...
I'm trying to go fast.
Where is this Roy debate?
Lol... Why you want me to lose?