While instances like this are thankfully rare, this does exemplify why it would be useful for moderators to be able to remove votes even after the voting period has closed.
Even without correcting ELO, this would still mitigate the impacts of such poor faith voters.
While the exact ELO shifts are lost to the system; treating a changed outcome as two wins for a fresh ELO shift would be a decent approximation.
Genders should be filter options on more dating sites. I (and presumably many like me), only wish to pursue cis-gendered members of the opposite sex, and it's annoying to see trans people listed as if they are exactly the same, when they obviously do not appeal to certain desires.
Con for his part outlined five traits, some of which were more effective than others; most of them used implicit moralities such as self interest to not eat high levels of mercury (or other toxins). When I first read this I did not get where con was going with the value of work trait, yet I’m going over this again it makes perfect sense that if any were to become food it ought to be the less productive.
The big thing is degrees of intelligence/sentience. While con did not explicitly prove that killing and eating is a-okay, pro was arguing against the status quo, meaning it was pro’s job to first show it as clearly unethical within the frameworks under discussion (which was a place of high ambiguity).
I think the real place con won this was simply not siding with the meat industry. Pro has built in pathos and ethos appeals if discussing the horrible conditions in pig farms. He lacks that as a generalization about the act of consuming meat itself (be it from a humane farm, or hunting).
…
Were this debate on how we’re hypocritical in our treatment of animals, pro would take it. Us being hypocrites, closely resembles an institutional kritik but fails to dismiss that humans are far far worse to kill.
I personally find the humor offered by con to be superior. Not that either actually made me laugh; but it’s at least amusing to see the entire (weak) basis for a case flipped to favor the opposite side.
Pro, I’ll actually suggest tossing some emojis in to compliment your argumentation style. While I’m imagining you calling con a rapist and such in John Cleese’s voice, without clarity that you’re committing to hyperbolic humor it’s a noteworthy conduct violation.
I’d also suggest starting a topic like this aimed at just one specific species. Pigs for example. The link for animals showing empathy included too many animals which are not farmed, while leaving out cows.
What is meant by sentient should be included in the description; as was, con was swiftly able to show insurmountable difference in degrees of sentience via humans moral reasoning. Why comparing to mentally disabled humans failed, is due to the averages con pointed out; exceptions are poor for setting rules. That super intelligent dog ought to not be farmed for being as smart as Forest Gump, says little about the rest of them.
Oh and never end a debate with a statement like: “ We wouldn't even be having this conversation if humans weren't sentient and that is the true basis of human value.”
Sadly the content of debate rounds can not be edited.
You can ask your opponent to share your link in their argument, and/or provide it at the start of your next round. Most judges don’t have a problem with this type of typo correction.
Technically those votes are based on outside content. If reported, they won’t pass muster.
We’ve had people try to win in the comment section and forums (with the voting on some debates clearly reflective of this instead of debate content). So the rule is votes must be based on the debate rounds
My reading on these terms disagrees with all of them.
Black pill = suicide because you weren’t born perfect enough to get what you want from life.
Red pill = genetics determine everything, and women are not human but rather a type of animal with no control over what they like and no ability to appreciate effort.
Blue pill = disagreeing with Incels and/or not hating women.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Intelligence_06 // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 0
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Sting // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 0
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Null vote, so meaningless to remove. It would otherwise be problematic had it assigned any points.
If in any strong doubt as you begin voting again, assigning no points and asking for reviews on the RFD is a good way to go.
**************************************************
Removed for ineligibility (additionally, some small amount of feedback to the debaters would be nice).
Sting
07.16.2023 01:04PM
Reason:
macman rapped better here
RationalMadman
07.18.2023 05:53PM
Reason:
Until the voting mods fix a major issue or make this unrated, I counter Sting's vote and don't give a shit about this 'diet battle' as I find the idea more ridiculous than anything if you ask me.
We don't know each other's reasons for liking, affording or eating certain diets. That's our own business.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Sting // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to pro
>Reason for Decision: Pro has healthier meals
>Reason for Mod Action:
In essence, this vote was just too vague... This can be avoided in future by just commenting on the core contention (and the main counterpoint or the lack thereof), listing a single source you found important (if voting sources), saying what conduct violation distracted you (if voting conduct)... You need not write a thesis, but some minimal level of detail is required to verify knowledge of what you're grading.
**************************************************
lancelot has better lyrics and disses. they were easy for me to understand. macman doesn’t know how to write very good or carry a tune, his lyrics were very choppy, but it’s ok because not everyone listens to rap
all of the rounds got very brutal and poetic so i give disses and lyrics to lancelot. he also makes more sense so he gets better flow but macman uses more rhymes.
---RFD---
Headings would help this debate a lot.
tiny.ccy/debateart
I like the focus on just one taboo drug.
Pro opens with strong warrants for the drug being comparatively safe. A lot of comparisons to another drug which is a controlled substance, so scope creep to that one is inevitable; oddly con complains about that, how pro's case could be applied to various other drugs, which pro was up front about his belief there.
Safety:
Pro argues the main side effect is constipation. With regulations side effects from other substances would disappear, etc.
Built into this point is far reaching problems with the current system of illegality, which results in poison being sold as heroin.
Alcohol:
Con argues alcohol is worse than heroin, therefore heroin should be illegal. Non-sequitur, or as pro puts it: "His rant about alcohol doesn’t mean what he thinks it means."
Con insists legalizing alcohol lead to more deaths but does not back it up with any evidence.
Sex:
Con argues that only things necessary for life should be legal, such as sex. Pro counters that sex is done for enjoyment.
Sources:
This goes to pro by a mile. Lots of .gov and .edu sources, to inform us how safe real heroin is; verses con telling us to go google some graphs he saw somewhere.
Pro had unwarranted assertions, and abandoned the debate once I took it seriously in R3.
That I needed to take it seriously at all is a huge compliment to his skill level.
In order to win, he’d basically have had to prove Native Americans do not exist. This is in addition to the hole in his logic which reduced the number of genders to just one; which he had no defense against.
#2
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
My voting structure:
Convincing arguments = diss quality/relevance
sources = rhyme/flow
legibility = wordplay
conduct = the opposite of what it usually means (bigger asshole wins)
Pro starts out brutal but without even rhyming his lines. If it wasn't such a vicious attack I would call it pathetic. He finally starts rhyming and the round one disses are good but how will things progress? With Rational pulling things like rhyming sidekick 30 lightyears away from "tried it" lol. Rational better be able to rap really fast with the way he writes but I'm not buying it.
From round one we can see that RM is clearly superior rhyme wise. He carries a rhyme scheme much further while staying relevant. In round two Lancelot continues not rhyming. I was less impressed (if you can call it "impressed" in the first place) with RM's round 2.
Then in round 3 Lancelot comes with a lot of meh-taphors and is much less brutal. RM attempts to clarify his flow, puns and rhymes but idk wtf kind of accent he must have to make some of that rhyme properly or what super-ingenious flow he's supposedly using.
I read the whole thing. Neither side made me want to side with them in the flamewar and neither side used good wordplay.
--- RFD (1 of 2)---
While I strongly disagree, pro soundly takes the win. A couple shaky ideas, but a strong case that a fetus is greater than or equal to a fully developed person in importance.
Sources are overwhelmingly in his favor, going into overkill, but not feeling like source spam. His source for a fetus not being part of the mother, soundly unmade one of cons few good points. Con comparatively had a few, a couple tossed at the end of a round feeling like source spam, and others which were from a copy/paste off wikipedia (which he didn't even cite).
Conduct gets shaky at the very end, with a last ditch appeal from con (which really should have been his opening argument), but I don't feel that it sways things enough even while being of note.
---
Glad to see exceptions outlined in the description. Going in, that already lifts this out of the gutter.
R1:
Pro completely dominated this. Con responding to just one of pro's arguments, gave the impression of dropping the others; he would have been better off just making his case (and it needed to be expanded) with a statement that he would respond to pro's in R2. I really don't think con will recover from this.
R2:
Pro basically extends.
Con makes a good comeback at the start.
R3:
Pro defends quite well, using authoratative sources to blow holes in cons comback (not going to outline it in great detail due to what follows).
Con misrepresents pro's case, betting the whole thing on legal definitions of murder (which as I mention below on 5., pro thought ahead on).
---
"having one’s lifespan reduced is a harm"
This is something missing from most of these debates. Usually it falls to Karen's hurt feelings, but pro makes a harm and makes it hold sway even for those who do not feel pain.
"Uncertainty Principle"
Also a smart thing for pro to outline, as it pre-defends against any outright dismissals of the value of the fetus.
1. Killing Human Beings is Wrong
Human life has value, more so if they're young due to remaining time span.
Con argues the starting point for consciousness is the 18th week, and abortion should be stopped at the 14th week (long after conception which this debate is about, but even further away from birth). He argues the baby born in a coma need not be kept alive if there is no possibility of it recovering (contextually seems to imply a brainless body, missing that anencephaly was one of the exceptions pro made for abortion being allowed), and that creates a difference.
Pro defends on potentiality being of utmost importance, and compares abortion to murdering coma patients. He weirdly attacks the possibility of recovery point (see anencephaly above). And insists that con believes all organisms with the possibility to achieve consciousness in the future are already people. He attacks con for poor reasoning for why a child is worth more than a fetus.
"If a woman has tried for years to conceive and finally becomes pregnant," this bares a little reflecting on... It seems like pro thinks that's the type of woman who is seeking an abortion... I doubt con will catch the absurdity of that notation. Also clearly if you have only one child from years of effort, that one is proportionately more valuable to you than one from a set of ten would be to someone else.
Con comes back strong with bulletpoints outlining why he believes a fetus and an infant are different.
2. Future Like Ours
Coma analogy, this belonged as a subpoint of 1.
3. Continuous Development
Pro argues that for simplicity all humans should be considered persons, regardless of form etc. I will say he cleverly layers in that adults are the same person as they were in utero, thereby anchoring the idea that it's a person even then.
4. Harm of Removing Potential:
Pro compares abortion to willful maiming of children (this has some good implications on circumcision debates). And does a logically valid syllogism.
5. Killing vs. Letting Die:
Pro pre-defends the bodily autonomy arguments, with a logially valid syllogism that if someone causes someone else to need their body to survive, and then denies them that access, it is murder (well equivalent anyway).
Pro is very smart to use the equivalency qualifier on murder, and it pre-defends against legal definitions.
6. Duty to Save:
Pro argues there is a duty to save a drowning child, even if mildly inconvenient. (I will note our teachers had very different opinions of virtue ethics)
Pro goes on to compare it to infanticide in ancient times.
7. Effects of an Abortion Ban:
Pro makes a strong case that abortion bans do decrease the rate of abortion. This pre-defends against coat hanger arguments.
Pro slips into needless offense, comparing the very idea of abortion to pedophilia (it's a particularly bad note to end a round on).
8. Mothers and Abortions:
Con implies negative utility lives if women are forced into motherhood, and that the need to punish disproportionately to crime is illogical.
Pro defends that he has not gone into a misogynistic rant, and insists quality of life does not outweigh life itself.
Con brings up overpopulation.
9. Inconsistent Moral Values:
Con makes a pathos appeal against the pro-life movement, for inflicting suffering on children via abandonment.
Con suggests unwilling mothers will resort to infanticide.
"This is an ad hominem fallacy, and it’s not even directed at me." Not an ad hominem fallacy if it's not directed at you. It's a weakly done political kritik. ... Anyways, pro does fine in defending this as off topic.
10. There is nothing human about a brainless body:
Got to say, I know where con wanted to go with this but it fell short. This feeds directly into responses to 1., addressing it there.
11. Light bulbs
This is tied to 1., but that it getting big... In R2 con blows this thing up, with a house analogy foundation vs the finished thing, to adequately show waste beyond just a sunk cost fallacy.
Pro defends that there is no morally significant difference between the two.
I suggest studying this one:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/4552-thbt-on-balance-abortion-should-be-illegal-in-the-united-states-from-the-point-of-conception-%5Bfor-austinl0926%5D
Got to pick a friend up from the airport, but here's the start of my notes on this debate.
---
Glad to see exceptions outlined in the description. Going in, that already lifts this out of the gutter.
"having one’s lifespan reduced is a harm"
This is something missing from most of these debates. Usually it falls to Karen's hurt feelings, but pro makes a harm and makes it hold sway even for those who do not feel pain.
"Uncertainty Principle"
Also a smart thing for pro to outline, as it pre-defends against any outright dismissals of the value of the fetus.
1. Killing Human Beings is Wrong
Human life has value, more so if they're young due to remaining time span.
2. Future Like Ours
Coma analogy, this belonged as a subpoint of 1.
3. Continuous Development
Pro argues that for simplicity all humans should be considered persons, regardless of form etc. I will say he cleverly layers in that adults are the same person as they were in utero, thereby anchoring the idea that it's a person even then.
4. Harm of Removing Potential:
Pro compares abortion to willful maiming of children (this has some good implications on circumcision debates). And does a logically valid syllogism.
5. Killing vs. Letting Die:
Pro pre-defends the bodily autonomy arguments, with a logially valid syllogism that if someone causes someone else to need their body to survive, and then denies them that access, it is murder (well equivalent anyway).
Pro is very smart to use the equivalency qualifier on murder, and it pre-defends against legal definitions.
As the instigator you’re already at a slight disadvantage, since the other side gets the last word
Letting them effectively get the first word in too, can be hard to overcome.
Without reading cons reply, let me guess… aborting them can’t make them cease to exist. Rather it sends them straight to heaven. FYI, the he Amish believe this about dead babies, it’s something to be celebrated instead of mourned l; at least up until some weird thing of poking it with a brush and it hits back.
As for the physical discomfort, more is attained with pregnancy and birth.
and God? Oh god, any mediocre debater could have a field day with that, just consider how many abortions God performs per year. RM will probably keep it simple with something along the lines of “unfounded opinion.”
Great description. Honestly where I stand with abortion… I think with the current setup I. The USA it would be a crime against at humanity for the government to step in (FYI, I get used to force abortions!), but still, ideally it would not occur.
Anyone else notice something strange with the Jedis when it comes to family?
This scene isn't as bad as I remembered it, but come on, you're in bed with Natalie Portman, and get all sweaty thinking about your mother?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1v-vMCUvDTE
I will agree with con that he likely would have reverted had he lived.
There was some old comic where he lived and became a rebel hero, with his costume painted white... Lame!
However, he basically got Luke to assist in killing himself, before that could happen. And as pro pointed out, he was at the moment of his death good enough to become a Force Ghost.
By the way, Anakin was not created by the force, because Sidious is a mother fucker.
Con is only right about Red Pill predating Andrew Tate (and maybe the blue pill stuff, never heard of it before).
Red Pill 💊 stems from incel culture, it is not about self improvement, because women suck and won’t suck on you no matter what unless you were born muscular with a 12” erection which took the doctors eye out. Basically what con refers to as black pill. They openly believe women are a type of non-sentient animal, etc.etc. Usually some racism tossed into the mix just so they can complete failing to be more than a bad stereotype.
Black Pill refers to the conclusion for Incels of killings themselves. Studies on this cultural subset are inconclusive (particularly the success rate), but Incels praise those brave enough to go swallow the black pill.
Must is a really hard qualifier to support.
I advise including bullet point summaries of key takeaways in the final round.
You’re good.
More debates (even repetitive ones) are almost always a good thing.
The comments are not considered part of the debate, even while they are hopefully topical to it.
While instances like this are thankfully rare, this does exemplify why it would be useful for moderators to be able to remove votes even after the voting period has closed.
Even without correcting ELO, this would still mitigate the impacts of such poor faith voters.
While the exact ELO shifts are lost to the system; treating a changed outcome as two wins for a fresh ELO shift would be a decent approximation.
Genders should be filter options on more dating sites. I (and presumably many like me), only wish to pursue cis-gendered members of the opposite sex, and it's annoying to see trans people listed as if they are exactly the same, when they obviously do not appeal to certain desires.
Con for his part outlined five traits, some of which were more effective than others; most of them used implicit moralities such as self interest to not eat high levels of mercury (or other toxins). When I first read this I did not get where con was going with the value of work trait, yet I’m going over this again it makes perfect sense that if any were to become food it ought to be the less productive.
The big thing is degrees of intelligence/sentience. While con did not explicitly prove that killing and eating is a-okay, pro was arguing against the status quo, meaning it was pro’s job to first show it as clearly unethical within the frameworks under discussion (which was a place of high ambiguity).
I think the real place con won this was simply not siding with the meat industry. Pro has built in pathos and ethos appeals if discussing the horrible conditions in pig farms. He lacks that as a generalization about the act of consuming meat itself (be it from a humane farm, or hunting).
…
Were this debate on how we’re hypocritical in our treatment of animals, pro would take it. Us being hypocrites, closely resembles an institutional kritik but fails to dismiss that humans are far far worse to kill.
Guilty on all counts, or just some subset?
I personally find the humor offered by con to be superior. Not that either actually made me laugh; but it’s at least amusing to see the entire (weak) basis for a case flipped to favor the opposite side.
I’ll be back later to finish…
…
Fun read.
Pro, I’ll actually suggest tossing some emojis in to compliment your argumentation style. While I’m imagining you calling con a rapist and such in John Cleese’s voice, without clarity that you’re committing to hyperbolic humor it’s a noteworthy conduct violation.
I’d also suggest starting a topic like this aimed at just one specific species. Pigs for example. The link for animals showing empathy included too many animals which are not farmed, while leaving out cows.
What is meant by sentient should be included in the description; as was, con was swiftly able to show insurmountable difference in degrees of sentience via humans moral reasoning. Why comparing to mentally disabled humans failed, is due to the averages con pointed out; exceptions are poor for setting rules. That super intelligent dog ought to not be farmed for being as smart as Forest Gump, says little about the rest of them.
Oh and never end a debate with a statement like: “ We wouldn't even be having this conversation if humans weren't sentient and that is the true basis of human value.”
Sadly the content of debate rounds can not be edited.
You can ask your opponent to share your link in their argument, and/or provide it at the start of your next round. Most judges don’t have a problem with this type of typo correction.
Whiteflame could rule differently if any get reported. But that’s unlikely. The debaters are both fine with it; and there is no evidence of duress.
Technically those votes are based on outside content. If reported, they won’t pass muster.
We’ve had people try to win in the comment section and forums (with the voting on some debates clearly reflective of this instead of debate content). So the rule is votes must be based on the debate rounds
My reading on these terms disagrees with all of them.
Black pill = suicide because you weren’t born perfect enough to get what you want from life.
Red pill = genetics determine everything, and women are not human but rather a type of animal with no control over what they like and no ability to appreciate effort.
Blue pill = disagreeing with Incels and/or not hating women.
It was reported awhile ago, so not part of any current heat.
If memory serves, it was reported by some rando I offended elsewhere. Neither a Korean, nor a madman.
> "I am done reacting. You poked the bear. Enjoy your time here."
No threat detected. Certainly a statement which implies dislike, but nothing which implies any intent to inflict harm.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Intelligence_06 // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 0
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Null vote.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Sting // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 0
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Null vote, so meaningless to remove. It would otherwise be problematic had it assigned any points.
If in any strong doubt as you begin voting again, assigning no points and asking for reviews on the RFD is a good way to go.
**************************************************
Removed for ineligibility (additionally, some small amount of feedback to the debaters would be nice).
Sting
07.16.2023 01:04PM
Reason:
macman rapped better here
Removed for ineligibility
Sting
07.16.2023 01:06PM
Reason:
i almost vote for mcman here but lancelot explains the cuck story in round 4, so it changed my mind and makes me vote him
Removed.
RationalMadman
07.18.2023 05:53PM
Reason:
Until the voting mods fix a major issue or make this unrated, I counter Sting's vote and don't give a shit about this 'diet battle' as I find the idea more ridiculous than anything if you ask me.
We don't know each other's reasons for liking, affording or eating certain diets. That's our own business.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Sting // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to pro
>Reason for Decision: Pro has healthier meals
>Reason for Mod Action:
In essence, this vote was just too vague... This can be avoided in future by just commenting on the core contention (and the main counterpoint or the lack thereof), listing a single source you found important (if voting sources), saying what conduct violation distracted you (if voting conduct)... You need not write a thesis, but some minimal level of detail is required to verify knowledge of what you're grading.
**************************************************
Removed for ineligibility
Sting
07.16.2023 12:47PM
Reason:
sirlancelot
lyrics 4
flow 3
roast 4
rhyme 3
rationmcman
lyrics 2
flow 1
diss 2
rhyme 4
lancelot has better lyrics and disses. they were easy for me to understand. macman doesn’t know how to write very good or carry a tune, his lyrics were very choppy, but it’s ok because not everyone listens to rap
all of the rounds got very brutal and poetic so i give disses and lyrics to lancelot. he also makes more sense so he gets better flow but macman uses more rhymes.
This type of argument is strange to me. If we’re in a simulation which tells us it’s round, why should we then dismiss what our senses inform us?
---RFD---
Headings would help this debate a lot.
tiny.ccy/debateart
I like the focus on just one taboo drug.
Pro opens with strong warrants for the drug being comparatively safe. A lot of comparisons to another drug which is a controlled substance, so scope creep to that one is inevitable; oddly con complains about that, how pro's case could be applied to various other drugs, which pro was up front about his belief there.
Safety:
Pro argues the main side effect is constipation. With regulations side effects from other substances would disappear, etc.
Built into this point is far reaching problems with the current system of illegality, which results in poison being sold as heroin.
Alcohol:
Con argues alcohol is worse than heroin, therefore heroin should be illegal. Non-sequitur, or as pro puts it: "His rant about alcohol doesn’t mean what he thinks it means."
Con insists legalizing alcohol lead to more deaths but does not back it up with any evidence.
Sex:
Con argues that only things necessary for life should be legal, such as sex. Pro counters that sex is done for enjoyment.
Sources:
This goes to pro by a mile. Lots of .gov and .edu sources, to inform us how safe real heroin is; verses con telling us to go google some graphs he saw somewhere.
Please remind me to vote on this. I have another of the same topic in my head right now, and don’t want to risk undue influence from that one.
Con will be forced to argue the Luddite position, but it is winnable.
> “ I am not going to get into a quote and response battle with Mall again in this debate. It’s generally pointless.”
Appreciated! I really hate sentence by sentence replies, instead of thematic ones.
https://tiny.cc/DebateArt
Pro had unwarranted assertions, and abandoned the debate once I took it seriously in R3.
That I needed to take it seriously at all is a huge compliment to his skill level.
In order to win, he’d basically have had to prove Native Americans do not exist. This is in addition to the hole in his logic which reduced the number of genders to just one; which he had no defense against.
How do you figure that?
Good catch, it should be "or"
Removed by request
FishChaser
07.02.2023 07:57PM
#2
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
My voting structure:
Convincing arguments = diss quality/relevance
sources = rhyme/flow
legibility = wordplay
conduct = the opposite of what it usually means (bigger asshole wins)
Pro starts out brutal but without even rhyming his lines. If it wasn't such a vicious attack I would call it pathetic. He finally starts rhyming and the round one disses are good but how will things progress? With Rational pulling things like rhyming sidekick 30 lightyears away from "tried it" lol. Rational better be able to rap really fast with the way he writes but I'm not buying it.
From round one we can see that RM is clearly superior rhyme wise. He carries a rhyme scheme much further while staying relevant. In round two Lancelot continues not rhyming. I was less impressed (if you can call it "impressed" in the first place) with RM's round 2.
Then in round 3 Lancelot comes with a lot of meh-taphors and is much less brutal. RM attempts to clarify his flow, puns and rhymes but idk wtf kind of accent he must have to make some of that rhyme properly or what super-ingenious flow he's supposedly using.
I read the whole thing. Neither side made me want to side with them in the flamewar and neither side used good wordplay.
--- RFD (1 of 2)---
While I strongly disagree, pro soundly takes the win. A couple shaky ideas, but a strong case that a fetus is greater than or equal to a fully developed person in importance.
Sources are overwhelmingly in his favor, going into overkill, but not feeling like source spam. His source for a fetus not being part of the mother, soundly unmade one of cons few good points. Con comparatively had a few, a couple tossed at the end of a round feeling like source spam, and others which were from a copy/paste off wikipedia (which he didn't even cite).
Conduct gets shaky at the very end, with a last ditch appeal from con (which really should have been his opening argument), but I don't feel that it sways things enough even while being of note.
---
Glad to see exceptions outlined in the description. Going in, that already lifts this out of the gutter.
R1:
Pro completely dominated this. Con responding to just one of pro's arguments, gave the impression of dropping the others; he would have been better off just making his case (and it needed to be expanded) with a statement that he would respond to pro's in R2. I really don't think con will recover from this.
R2:
Pro basically extends.
Con makes a good comeback at the start.
R3:
Pro defends quite well, using authoratative sources to blow holes in cons comback (not going to outline it in great detail due to what follows).
Con misrepresents pro's case, betting the whole thing on legal definitions of murder (which as I mention below on 5., pro thought ahead on).
---
"having one’s lifespan reduced is a harm"
This is something missing from most of these debates. Usually it falls to Karen's hurt feelings, but pro makes a harm and makes it hold sway even for those who do not feel pain.
"Uncertainty Principle"
Also a smart thing for pro to outline, as it pre-defends against any outright dismissals of the value of the fetus.
---RFD (2 of 2)---
1. Killing Human Beings is Wrong
Human life has value, more so if they're young due to remaining time span.
Con argues the starting point for consciousness is the 18th week, and abortion should be stopped at the 14th week (long after conception which this debate is about, but even further away from birth). He argues the baby born in a coma need not be kept alive if there is no possibility of it recovering (contextually seems to imply a brainless body, missing that anencephaly was one of the exceptions pro made for abortion being allowed), and that creates a difference.
Pro defends on potentiality being of utmost importance, and compares abortion to murdering coma patients. He weirdly attacks the possibility of recovery point (see anencephaly above). And insists that con believes all organisms with the possibility to achieve consciousness in the future are already people. He attacks con for poor reasoning for why a child is worth more than a fetus.
"If a woman has tried for years to conceive and finally becomes pregnant," this bares a little reflecting on... It seems like pro thinks that's the type of woman who is seeking an abortion... I doubt con will catch the absurdity of that notation. Also clearly if you have only one child from years of effort, that one is proportionately more valuable to you than one from a set of ten would be to someone else.
Con comes back strong with bulletpoints outlining why he believes a fetus and an infant are different.
2. Future Like Ours
Coma analogy, this belonged as a subpoint of 1.
3. Continuous Development
Pro argues that for simplicity all humans should be considered persons, regardless of form etc. I will say he cleverly layers in that adults are the same person as they were in utero, thereby anchoring the idea that it's a person even then.
4. Harm of Removing Potential:
Pro compares abortion to willful maiming of children (this has some good implications on circumcision debates). And does a logically valid syllogism.
5. Killing vs. Letting Die:
Pro pre-defends the bodily autonomy arguments, with a logially valid syllogism that if someone causes someone else to need their body to survive, and then denies them that access, it is murder (well equivalent anyway).
Pro is very smart to use the equivalency qualifier on murder, and it pre-defends against legal definitions.
6. Duty to Save:
Pro argues there is a duty to save a drowning child, even if mildly inconvenient. (I will note our teachers had very different opinions of virtue ethics)
Pro goes on to compare it to infanticide in ancient times.
7. Effects of an Abortion Ban:
Pro makes a strong case that abortion bans do decrease the rate of abortion. This pre-defends against coat hanger arguments.
Pro slips into needless offense, comparing the very idea of abortion to pedophilia (it's a particularly bad note to end a round on).
8. Mothers and Abortions:
Con implies negative utility lives if women are forced into motherhood, and that the need to punish disproportionately to crime is illogical.
Pro defends that he has not gone into a misogynistic rant, and insists quality of life does not outweigh life itself.
Con brings up overpopulation.
9. Inconsistent Moral Values:
Con makes a pathos appeal against the pro-life movement, for inflicting suffering on children via abandonment.
Con suggests unwilling mothers will resort to infanticide.
"This is an ad hominem fallacy, and it’s not even directed at me." Not an ad hominem fallacy if it's not directed at you. It's a weakly done political kritik. ... Anyways, pro does fine in defending this as off topic.
10. There is nothing human about a brainless body:
Got to say, I know where con wanted to go with this but it fell short. This feeds directly into responses to 1., addressing it there.
11. Light bulbs
This is tied to 1., but that it getting big... In R2 con blows this thing up, with a house analogy foundation vs the finished thing, to adequately show waste beyond just a sunk cost fallacy.
Pro defends that there is no morally significant difference between the two.
I suggest studying this one:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/4552-thbt-on-balance-abortion-should-be-illegal-in-the-united-states-from-the-point-of-conception-%5Bfor-austinl0926%5D
Got to pick a friend up from the airport, but here's the start of my notes on this debate.
---
Glad to see exceptions outlined in the description. Going in, that already lifts this out of the gutter.
"having one’s lifespan reduced is a harm"
This is something missing from most of these debates. Usually it falls to Karen's hurt feelings, but pro makes a harm and makes it hold sway even for those who do not feel pain.
"Uncertainty Principle"
Also a smart thing for pro to outline, as it pre-defends against any outright dismissals of the value of the fetus.
1. Killing Human Beings is Wrong
Human life has value, more so if they're young due to remaining time span.
2. Future Like Ours
Coma analogy, this belonged as a subpoint of 1.
3. Continuous Development
Pro argues that for simplicity all humans should be considered persons, regardless of form etc. I will say he cleverly layers in that adults are the same person as they were in utero, thereby anchoring the idea that it's a person even then.
4. Harm of Removing Potential:
Pro compares abortion to willful maiming of children (this has some good implications on circumcision debates). And does a logically valid syllogism.
5. Killing vs. Letting Die:
Pro pre-defends the bodily autonomy arguments, with a logially valid syllogism that if someone causes someone else to need their body to survive, and then denies them that access, it is murder (well equivalent anyway).
Pro is very smart to use the equivalency qualifier on murder, and it pre-defends against legal definitions.
> Adult dogs and dolphins are smarter than newborns, but killing a newborn is more evil than killing a dog or a dolphin.
Got to disagree with you there, but I do understand the rhetorical point you're building.
As the instigator you’re already at a slight disadvantage, since the other side gets the last word
Letting them effectively get the first word in too, can be hard to overcome.
Your R1, seriously?!
Without reading cons reply, let me guess… aborting them can’t make them cease to exist. Rather it sends them straight to heaven. FYI, the he Amish believe this about dead babies, it’s something to be celebrated instead of mourned l; at least up until some weird thing of poking it with a brush and it hits back.
As for the physical discomfort, more is attained with pregnancy and birth.
and God? Oh god, any mediocre debater could have a field day with that, just consider how many abortions God performs per year. RM will probably keep it simple with something along the lines of “unfounded opinion.”
Great description. Honestly where I stand with abortion… I think with the current setup I. The USA it would be a crime against at humanity for the government to step in (FYI, I get used to force abortions!), but still, ideally it would not occur.
Please remind me in like 12 hours.
Drinking to drown out fireworks and memories.
Damn, that was well done! I had not noticed more than one kiss between the twins…
BTW, you ever look up the crazy censorship of Sailor Moon?
Anyone else notice something strange with the Jedis when it comes to family?
This scene isn't as bad as I remembered it, but come on, you're in bed with Natalie Portman, and get all sweaty thinking about your mother?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1v-vMCUvDTE
I haven't read more than a tiny fraction of the lore, but since when is The Force intelligent?
And damn, I hate the idea of midichlorians so much. It goes into racial supremacy theories.
I love your vote!
I will agree with con that he likely would have reverted had he lived.
There was some old comic where he lived and became a rebel hero, with his costume painted white... Lame!
However, he basically got Luke to assist in killing himself, before that could happen. And as pro pointed out, he was at the moment of his death good enough to become a Force Ghost.
By the way, Anakin was not created by the force, because Sidious is a mother fucker.
Con is only right about Red Pill predating Andrew Tate (and maybe the blue pill stuff, never heard of it before).
Red Pill 💊 stems from incel culture, it is not about self improvement, because women suck and won’t suck on you no matter what unless you were born muscular with a 12” erection which took the doctors eye out. Basically what con refers to as black pill. They openly believe women are a type of non-sentient animal, etc.etc. Usually some racism tossed into the mix just so they can complete failing to be more than a bad stereotype.
Black Pill refers to the conclusion for Incels of killings themselves. Studies on this cultural subset are inconclusive (particularly the success rate), but Incels praise those brave enough to go swallow the black pill.
Sadly it’s a popularity contest. Still, quality can help.
HoF material