A more in complex look at these issues and their causes may be found at:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/4165-the-gender-wage-gap-is-not-an-example-of-patriarchy
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: AleutianTexan // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
8 days after the fact, but still appreciated to see the direction you would have gone in had you not conceded. I'll give short answers to some highlights from it.
Even with all that extra time, you missed the core of the Is–Ought Problem. That you believe it /ought/ to not be an example, does not change that it /is/ an example.
...
-> "It is funny how Barney tries to debunk my argument, that admittedly, they haven't read."
Glad you enjoyed. Any time there's shared BoP, a proactive case is required. I merely withheld the direct debunking's for later. That said, there was a lot of overlap due to how predictable this topic gets.
-> "So, neither us, nor the voters can consider a source from just its abstract."
We do all the time. But yes, I would have willingly pulled out vital snippets from the full report to appease you.
That said, challenging sources is a tactic I wish I saw more of.
-> "we can logically deduct that this is one of the reasons the pay gap exists"
Oh that inflates it, but there was the 7% not explained by such factors.
-> "found that the gender wage gap among college graduates is explained by 33 to 66 percent by different preferences for occupational roles"
See adjusted gender pay gap. I pre-refuted this entire train of thought by not focusing on the non-adjusted gap.
-> "Could you tell me a WIDESPREAD NORM that prohibits women from entering particular fields or at least influences them to make certain choices?"
Don't need to, as I've shown a massive pay gap (average $43K/year) for physicians.
-> "THEMSELVES AND DELIBERATELY"
Again, the adjusted gender pay gap does apples to apples comparisons within any field both work.
-> "SYSTEMIC AND INSTITUTIONALISED PATRIARCHY?"
When you're literally talking about the Federal Government doing something so widespread, you don't get more systemic than that.
-> "Men face equivalent or even more examples of gender norms and/or discrimination"
Relevance to disproving that women are paid less for the same work?
-> "parent to instruct their daughter"
Parents raising their daughters to be little more than slaves, if widespread enough to cause the undeniable gender pay gap, is a fine example of patriarchy in itself.
-> "The unadjusted pay gap shows practically NOTHING"
Actually it shows the literal extent of what's a problem, and what's just random static due to other measurable variables. From 30% (or whatever number people throw around today) down to a meaningful 7%.
---What would have been pro's R2 (1 of 2)---
I. NOTES
It is funny how Barney tries to debunk my argument, that admittedly, they haven't read.
II. REFUTATIONS
"Patriarchy is apparently a “supposed or not” system which places men above women. And the wage gap (even if flawed) is a common example of that.
The patriarchy drives women into lower paying professions by discrimination [1],
The patriarchy and wage gap in the tech sector is decreasing, proving they exists [2], and
The patriarchy, through religion, represses women’s pay [3]."
1) Your third source here cannot count and can't contribute to the debate, as it required paid access of 30 dollars. So, neither us, nor the voters can consider a source from just its abstract.
2) Your second source has indeed some quite interesting conclusions, but I would like to point out the following quotes;
"Research has found several factors that partly explain the wage discrepancies between men and women and which are accounted for to different extents"
"Women’s workforce interruptions and shorter working hours, usually conditioned by having children, affect the gender wage gap, as men typically gain more labour market experience than women (Blau & Kahn, 2017). Similarly, Mihaila (2016) finds that human capital acquired in the labour market is the most influential factor in determining the wage gap. Furthermore, in their study of the United States labour market from 1968 to 1997, Gayle and Golan (2012) relate increases in the female labour share, caused by technological changes, declining costs of producing home goods, higher education levels, and demographic changes in marriage and fertility trends, to declines in the gender wage gap. The importance of demographic changes is moreover shown by Loughran and Zissimopoulos (2009). In their cross-sectional study of household in the United States in 1976 and 2004, they find that, while marriage has negative effects on both male and female wages, childbearing affects only female wages negatively, thus increasing the gender wage gap."
A) Unless you want to say that just because women are of the nature to bear children and have the sole responsibility of actually giving birth to a child, this is an example of patriarchy, which is absurd, we can logically deduct that this is one of the reasons the pay gap exists, that isn't patriarchal in nature.
B) So, the reasons that the pay gap has severely declined is because home goods have become cheaper (so women could do housework better and quicker, thus freeing up time for them to work (not saying they should be doing the housework, but still), and because they have less children and can focus more on their career. Are any of these two reasons patriarchy-induced?
"More recently, researchers considered psychological dissimilarities between men and women. For instance, Niederle and Vesterlund (2007) have shown in an experiment that women tend to avoid competition, while men have a tendency to embrace it. Such differences in behaviour would also be reflected in the gender wage gap. Furthermore, in a longitudinal study of a 1972 high school class cohort in the United States, Daymont and Andrisani (1984) found that the gender wage gap among college graduates is explained by 33 to 66 percent by different preferences for occupational roles and different choices of study fields."
Proves my point.
Last sentence of your source:
"However, further research needs to be done on the direction of causality and other possibly influential factors to the gender wage gap and economic growth than those considered in this study"
Again, it heavily implies my point.
3) About the first source;
“For example, by the time a woman earns her first dollar, her occupational choice is the culmination of years of education, guidance by mentors, expectations set by those who raised her, hiring practices of firms, and widespread norms and expectations about work–family balance held by employers, co-workers, and society. “
EXACTLY as it is about males. When they are children, they also receive guidance from mentors, by society , expectations and widespread norms like “men don’t cry”.
Could you tell me a WIDESPREAD NORM that prohibits women from entering particular fields or at least influences them to make certain choices?
I can do the same for men : Men don’t cry, you are always at fault about what a woman does (heavily implied, not announced) etc
It seems that the writer has “forgot” to mention that more women are in universities than men. Then, why is the case that the pay gap hasn’t been eliminated? Well, it is attributable to the fact that it COULD BE that men and women have different occupational choices, and yes, even though more women are educated, they THEMSELVES AND DELIBERATELY choose to major in low paying fields and sectors (I mean, no patriarchy forces you to choose what you will study in UNI)
---What would have been pro's R2 (2 of 2)---
III. QUESTIONS
I suspect one of the major reasons feminists cry so badly is “Pay Gap, Pay Gap!!!” is because it just happens that women are the least represented in highly paid managerial positions. Why is it that no feminists ever complain about the building sector being occupied 99% by men? Nearly all builders are men. Civilisation doesn’t only happen at the top of the “food chain”. If suddenly all labor workers vanished, CEOs couldn’t do anything about that. The whole society would crumble.
“Key points include:
A. Gender pay gaps within occupations persist, even after accounting for years of experience, hours worked, and education.
B. Decisions women make about their occupation and career do not happen in a vacuum—they are also shaped by society.
C. The long hours required by the highest-paid occupations can make it difficult for women to succeed, since women tend to shoulder the majority of family caretaking duties.
D. Many professions dominated by women are low paid, and professions that have become female-dominated have become lower paid. “
SOURCE?
As are men’s
OK, so?
Have you heard of supply and demand?
C) Somewhere in your sources, it was mentioned that in the federal sector, women face a 0.06 cent deficit of pay due to discrimination.
Is something that is obviously attributable to a few sexist higher-ups an example of SYSTEMIC AND INSTITUTIONALISED PATRIARCHY? I don’t think so…
IV. ARGUMENTS
The fact that women are influenced in their lives and educationally by others to choose a specific example constitutes no patriarchy.
Men face equivalent or even more examples of gender norms and/or discrimination (at least in our times in the western world).
Also, any possible instructions given by parents, mentors etc as mentioned in your source, ARE NOT NECESSARILY AND ALWAYS the result of a gender norm. E.g.
What if a girl is actually timid, very agreeable and “submissive” to their boyfriends or parents. Would it be a social norm for a parent to instruct their daughter to choose a position that is NOT managerial? I mean, this position would obviously be unfitted for this young woman. (Opposite situation about men is also true and a similar situation applies with opposite criteria).
And, since we have no stats on how much of these instructions are actually gender norms or real and good-faith instructions playing to the receiver’s strengths and avoiding weaknesses, we can safely assume that this is not an example of an institutionalized system of power aimed at benefiting men and subjugating women (patriarchy).
This claim is false;
“The key takeaway being that a discussion of the unadjusted, does not rule out the adjusted, as the adjusted is entirely contained within the unadjusted.”
Yes, it does, for the following reasons
The unadjusted pay gap is not an example of patriarchy, as;
The unadjusted pay gap shows practically NOTHING
This is a false syllogism. Imagine saying that (an imaginary fact, for the sake of argument) Greece has the greatest number of homeless people in the world, while I “forgot” to add the explanatory substatistic (adjusted statistic) that it has the greatest number of homeless people PROPORTIONATELY to its population. (so not absolute numbers)
V. CONCLUSIONS
In my argument, I have:
Pointed out abstracts of my opponent’s sources that if not prove, at least heavily imply my point.
Have pointed out the irrelevance and inelligibility of some of his sources
Made 2 important arguments about education and about the relation between unadjusted vs adjusted pay gap.
Posed some important questions that prove my point.
R1 was the only real round of debate, after that with a concession in place I treated it as discussion rather than trying to prove/disprove claims.
-> "are we talking around the world?"
I used international examples to highlight both the harms and the clear connection to misogyny (as opposed to coincidence), yet also used undeniable examples from the Western World. This does highlight the importance of scope limitations when none are directly implied by the topic statement.
-> "How many people have to not pay/underpay women for it to be a patriarchy?"
We did not pick a precise percentage (this debate actually stemmed from a denial that the pay gap exists at all). It would be up to each voter if they believe the problem was shown to be widespread enough and harmful enough to be of significance (e.g., one little girl being underpaid for her lemonade stand out of the 150 million women in the USA, would not imply anything meaningful).
I believe that I was able to prove the adjusted averages at 7% in the USA, highlights the commonness and degree of harm from it to be more than enough to call it a system; and that women are intentionally targeted makes it an example of patriarchy.
-> "matriarchal and patriarchal origins"
Agreed. However, that both sides suck at times, does not change if either sucks.
-> "my question is, can it be proven to a wide extend as malicious or intentional?"
The debate was cut short after R1. While I believe my international examples implied it as malicious (women being murdered for wanting to know how to read), without those implications being challenged I had no reason to further bolster them.
-> "if possible please dont have to have people download pdf's, pay money or create a user to see info."
The downloading of PDFs is for official reports shared with the public as PDFs; often unavoidable but I don't think any of those from me were behind pay walls. I do however frequently cite journeys for which the full data is behind paywalls; but have they almost always have an abstract available to understand the gist of their conclusions.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Melcharaz // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: tied
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
There are three types of tied votes:
(1) Ones which allot zero points. They have no meaningful impact on the debate outcome, and are thus only moderated if warranted for other reasons.
(2) Ones which cancel themselves out. While the category assignments may serve as feedback to the debaters, there is no still meaningful impact for moderation consider. These are in essence the same as the previous type.
(3) Votes which leave arguments tied, but assign other categories. While these need not meet the sufficiency standards for an argument vote, they must still evaluate arguments enough to justify no clear winner. There is however an exception for repeated forfeitures allowing conduct only with no further explanation.
**************************************************
Seems we can't currently change debates from standard to rated, and all open rated ones are now standard. With a little luck this hiccup will be fixed this weekend.
Got to say, if anyone ever feels like someone is acting stalkeresque towards them, they should probably not go into said stalkers open debate challenges.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Mps1213 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Pretty clear case of basing the vote on opinions taken from debating one of the debaters...
The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
Any awarded point(s) must be based on the content presented inside the debate rounds. Content from the comment section, other votes, forums, your personal experience, etcetera, is ineligible for point allotments.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#based-on-outside-content
**************************************************
As a whole i believe this is a pretty pointless debate. With that said, pro provides reasons that Lancelot shouldn’t be president. Don’t care about the semantics, follow the rules of the site.
Also I don’t believe someone who has forfeited a total of three rounds in the two debates I’ve had with him should be the president of a debate website. I think he gets into a lot of debates and always assumes his nit picking, trap setting style of debate will win, and I dislike that. I don’t think he should be the president of the site. If I’m being completely honest, no one should be the president of this website because that is a little stupid in my opinion. I love the site and have had fun on here, but to have a debate this technical and deep over the presidency that no one really cares about is goofy.
However if I was forced to vote, it wouldn’t be for Lancelot, unless RM is running because that guy is worse. I don’t necessarily care that he doesn’t fit the criteria, but if the site is going to be this serious about the presidency, as to have an entire debate over the qualifications, I figure the people running should at least meet them. Lancelot doesn’t, and he’s also not a very good debater in my opinion, based off the two debates we’ve had. Admittedly the debates we have had are pretty technical and scientific and maybe that just isn’t his type of debating, but that’s my experience with him.
Pro made the better arguments, simply by stating the rules. Shouldn’t even really be a debate. Either you’re qualified or you aren’t. if you aren’t… then you aren’t.
---Vote Update---
I wrongly assigned pro sources. He used movie clips to get this lead, and they are the topic of the debate so speak to the style of arguments instead of sources.
This leaves sources as them both doing their due diligence, plus con mentions Rocky and the stuff about memory (which he didn't do much analysis on in his case, mostly just thrown out there letting it speak for itself). Pro defends well against Rocky, as fictional with a focus on the glory of the violence, whereas Cinderella Man focuses on the duel nature of impacts to family (con made it duel nature with the toxic side to it).
...
However, this points the style points of executing his case so well with those sources falling under the preview of argument allotments. This tips the scale towards pro's favor on arguments due to skill at execution. While it is largely pathos, that is part of making an argument more convincing. It is very close to outright giving him arguments, but I'll leave them tied in respect for the well performed job by both sides turning this one into a toss-up.
"All other point categories connect to arguments, ideally enhancing them, but may be weighted separately; particularly if the awardee for arguments nevertheless fell short in another area so as to mitigate their margin of victory."
AND
"It is necessary to explain all awarded points, but a mitigating point against your primary point recipient need not be as detailed for the vote to remain if not good, at least borderline."
To use an analogy, in my voting paradigm earning points is pushing something uphill against an increasing incline. If someone gains arguments, and is in the lead on sources but not by too much, I will probably leave sources tied. This mentality came about due to fluff votes, where people would try to assign more points than the other side, rather than being willing to admit fault to their preferred side.
In this case, your degree of victory was mitigated. Whereas if I favored pro on arguments, sources would be harder for him to earn on top of that.
...
"Things not to award sources for (barring for exceptional cases):
"The subject of the debate… E.g., in a biblical debate, preferring one side’s analysis of the bible itself already speaks directly to the argument points, not exceptional sourcing."
In review, I did violate this, as movie clips from the two are more akin to the bible in the biblical debate than not.
Yeah, this looks eerily similar... Here's hoping ChatGPT makes a plagiarism checker!
...
Whether spending your whole life single is a better choice depends on your personal preferences and circumstances. For some people, being single can be a fulfilling and satisfying choice, while for others, being in a committed relationship or marriage can bring them happiness and fulfillment. Here are some things to consider:
Personal happiness: Do you feel happy and fulfilled being single? If so, then continuing to live your life as a single person may be a good choice for you. However, if you feel lonely or unfulfilled, you may want to consider seeking out meaningful relationships.
Life goals: Consider your life goals and whether they align with a single lifestyle. For example, if you prioritize your career or other personal pursuits, being single may be a better choice for you. However, if you want to start a family or have a partner to share your life with, being in a relationship may be more aligned with your goals.
Social support: Do you have a strong network of friends and family who provide social support and companionship? If so, being single may be less of a challenge. However, if you lack social support, being single may increase feelings of loneliness and isolation.
Personal growth: Being single can provide opportunities for personal growth and self-discovery, but so can being in a relationship. Consider whether you value the personal growth opportunities that being single can provide, or if you prefer to grow and learn in the context of a partnership.
Ultimately, the decision to spend your whole life single is a personal one that depends on your unique preferences and circumstances. It's important to make a choice that feels true to yourself and makes you happy and fulfilled.
Via greater impacts, his bolstered his case better. That he ultimately lost arguments, doesn't diminish his superior use of sourcing to support his case.
Were I voting in his favor on arguments, sources would be left in the tied range.
Regarding Robin Hood Prince of Thieves, I will give credit to 300 and Troy for machoism, but there's a host of other great metrics the hero in Robin Hood has.
Just watch this clip where he defends his wife from a would be rapist who sneaks in the window, and he makes a stand against nepotism and white supremacy. At the same time, he's so compassionate, trying to help the criminal find his missing father. During the fight he even pauses for a moment to romantically reassure his bride with a kiss, assuring the audience it's not about the fight, but the milk he's fighting for!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wg-UpYglAEw
As for his thing against pre-marital sex: I'm no puritan, but it's hard to deny there being something positive about a man sticking to his good Christian values (almost any value set would do; it speaks so much to integrity)... Oh, and he's a humanitarian, in another scene he takes a stand against poverty, by bashing in the slums. Most mayors today have failed to live up to his example of cleaning up parks for everyone's enjoyment; rather than having them be tent cities for the homeless. I know he didn't completely solve that problem, but he greatly decreased the number of homeless people /living/ in that park.
---RFD (intro)---
Pretty much breaking this down by the rounds for these two fighters...
R1 & R2
I’m enjoying the strategies of each debater, one arguing for what a man should be, and the other arguing what a man must not be to embody those same traits.
Pro comes out in the lead for two reasons:
1. The begging scene in which for the good of his family he degraded himself (I suppose that would fall under bravery, while it really should fall under true honor; not to be confused with "honor").
2. "the outcome is more a feeling of relief and satisfaction than appreciation." Hard to deny this about Click.
R3
"too typical and mimicking others, it doesn't quite cut as uniquely good or the 'best' specifically because near replicas exist."
This is a fantastic point from con. Going in I expected two movies of the same formula (possible both starring Russel Crowe) to butt heads, but there is value in uniqueness.
"toxic masculinity"
This would be a good time to emulate pro's own tactics with a clip. Got to say, con's case would have been helped with with the death follow up scene's brilliant use of U2's song Ultra Violent (Light My Way). A hopeful note that change is possible if you act in the now. Also highlight clips of Russel Crowe being a misogynist, would have had great impact. I liked the follow up later of "the proof he is succeeding at becoming a better man are either specifically getting a woman to love and have sex with him as well as winning a fight" which reminds me of some lessons from The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck, and Models (both by Mark Manson... Define your value metrics internally with things you can control, not other people).
"beastly manly spirit"
Love this line.
"Rocky"
A comparative clip would have made this better, but it is what has been missing from the genetic claims.
Oh con goes deep into how memory works.
R4
Pro defends his movie for being based on a true story. This gives it a lot of credibility.
The link at the end of the round solidifies this.
"The main villain is the poverty and the circumstances the main character finds himself in."
That's actually the core conflict, not villain. But point taken, usually the core conflict would be is Rocky going to out punch the other guy.
"Jimmy willingly starves himself and gives his meal to his children"
Dude, that's powerful. Use a clip.
Con's comeback about toxic masculinity, is very well executed with the leadup from the previous round. As we in the audience just watched a fight scene (with clips of starving children for motivation). So we can't separate Russel Crowe from the violence. That said, the clip of Russel Crowe humiliating himself instantly comes to mind as not merely accepting help, but begging for it.
"completely fails to teach is how to lose and improve anyway"
Pro pre-refuted this.
"The entire movie is glorifying ignoring your wife's advice and feelings on matters"
Fair! ... It is assertiveness, but such might not be so ideal afterall.
R5
Alright, I don't know how this will go in the end! Which is damned rare for me (usually I know from reading the contender's R1).
Pro wisely uses bullet point reminders. The final one about Click was not a silver bullet, as it was a summary of con's fun argument to go the opposite way to the same desired goal (semantically different, but to me valid, and made this debate worth reading).
The defense of Toxic Masculinity would have been better had it cut out ten seconds faster, since I went from being teary eyed, to seeing him cut off his wife from talking. Ah, con catches that it's assertiveness as one of the metrics to define this debate (I'm still considering toxic masculinity a negative metric counter to the positive ones, but this example of it is shown to also be one of the desired traits... so more or less a wash).
Con comes back to lay out the core takeaways people are likely to have, and how it is likely to affect them going forward...
---RFD (conclusions)---
Arguments:
This is damned close! Were it not a shared BoP debate, con would easily win via casting sufficient doubt. As is, con casts doubt, but doesn't fully bolster his own movie within the pre-agreed metrics; yet he adds negative metrics that men should of course avoid; and pro's movie falls into them.
Pro's movie gets credit for being based on a true story, con's gets credit for being so damned unique. Yes, pro showed that Rocky is very different, yet it still painted the picture of intuitive similarities to other movies (A Beautiful Mind really should have been used as well). Click had nothing to be at all compared to it.
Con certainly could have strengthened his case with a little direct discussion of how virtues are vices when taken to the excess (as the toxic masculinity implied).
Pro really should have hit hard on the magic in Click, that the solution in it is unattainable unless you happen to meet Christopher Walken, or...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jInlO6-JTww
(FYI, my outside opinion that Click isn't really so unique, is not admissible evidence since it did not come up in the debate; even while it can still be commented upon).
This feels weird because I am in the end I believe pro is ultimately right, and yet the skill with which con argued his case makes me favor his arguments by a small margin. Pro is right that Cinderella Man has a better role model, and yet con's country that Click is a better movie to serve as teacher for those desired traits doesn't seem to be adequately challenged; it was something of a dark mirror to pro's case.
A little more offense against Click, or better defense against the negative traits in Cinderella man, could have tipped this the other way.
While I don't think it controlled my assignment, I will admit to a slight bias in favor of Click (seen it, know the context of every scene; had I known that for Cinderella Man, maybe the hurt wife would not damage it as much via being familiar with scenes of him treating her well).
Conduct:
Conduct for RM's routine forfeiture.
Sources:
This almost inevitably goes to pro. I was left in tears from the well timed use of clips from his movie, making me think that Russel Crowe is the better man to want to be (as opposed to just not being like Adam Sandler; even if such probably has more impact on the zeitgeist). Cons did ok, and his use of out of movie sources was smart, but they ended up being poorly executed wanting the reader to make their own interpretations of large chunks of data, rather than summarizing it in his words and giving links (his R4 was more quotations than his own words).
Two things:
1. Kritik: Role "models" plural! 😁
2. Robin Hood Prince of Thieves is better than either of these two. Defending the country from a tyrant, being scarred and humiliated, even losing family members, and just consider the obvious love scene in which the hero takes a stand against premarital sex "I will not take her, until we are properly wed!" And in the end, he dies trying to save his kingdom...
I’m enjoying the strategies of each debater, one raging for what a man should be, and the other arguing what a man must not be to embody those same traits.
Regarding the transitive property, it's neat that Steve Rogers is significantly stronger than the Hulk. I mean Thanos kicks Hulks ass using just raw strength and barely breaks a sweat. Thanos vs Steve was a real contest of strength. So by the power of the transitive property (or more like a bit of bad wring) Steve is at least twice as strong as The Hulk. Conversely, those guys Steve beat up in the elevator, definitely would have taken down big green and jolly.
Another matter is the Conservation of Ninjutsu. One ninja is a threat, but an army of them only has an equal skill to the one divided by the total number of ninjas.
Here's a tool you'll find useful:
https://tiny.cc/DebateArt
I also advise a shorter resolution along the lines of just:
"It's idiotic to take sacred religious texts literally."
Right now someone is likely to argue you have not met Burden of Proof for each and every clause in the resolution, rather than actually defending religion (which I assume to be your intent).
It took me a minute... So there's an annoying bit of flawed code in voting, that any unassigned points are awarded to both sides.
So Intelligence's null vote (https://www.debateart.com/debates/4123/vote-links/8571) gave 7 to both sides, since both sides received 7 it's a wash. I'd prefer it if it gave 0 to both sides, but I cannot modify the coding (the owner wants to maintain control on that, and says it'll get fixed eventually).
Mps' vote (https://www.debateart.com/debates/4123/vote-links/8576) creates the 1 point difference, via giving S&G to only one side
When removing votes, I only reference the difference (the tied points are not even considered to be cast for purposes of moderation).
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Americandebater24 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to pro.
>Reason for Decision: "As an atheist, who values logic and reason over faith and thus lacks a belief in Allah and Gods in general, I have to side with the Pro."
>Reason for Mod Action:
Any awarded point(s) must be based on the content presented inside the debate rounds. Content from the comment section, other votes, forums, your personal experience, etcetera, is ineligible for point allotments.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#based-on-outside-content
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: M.H.S // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 5 to con.
>Reason for Decision: "Contender's arguments alone should be the reason he wins."
>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.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#casting-votes
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: M.H.S // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 5 to con.
>Reason for Decision: "............................."
>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.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#casting-votes
**************************************************
That is basically a free win for anyone who accepts this, because you do not specify anything about the comparison. So if some random blog is shown to have even less visitors, then you lose.
Occasionally necessary but misused.
My R1 is ready. You should post yours soon, as you've made this a quickfire debate.
A more in complex look at these issues and their causes may be found at:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/4165-the-gender-wage-gap-is-not-an-example-of-patriarchy
If anyone enjoyed this topic, there's a more simple take on it at:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/4120-the-gender-pay-gap-doesn-t-exist
Can't remember who did. Sadly, once we mark them as handled we can't look back at the reports.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: AleutianTexan // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
**************************************************
Bump to encourage voting.
My reply to you was not to ask you to vote, it was just to discuss the points you raised.
8 days after the fact, but still appreciated to see the direction you would have gone in had you not conceded. I'll give short answers to some highlights from it.
Even with all that extra time, you missed the core of the Is–Ought Problem. That you believe it /ought/ to not be an example, does not change that it /is/ an example.
...
-> "It is funny how Barney tries to debunk my argument, that admittedly, they haven't read."
Glad you enjoyed. Any time there's shared BoP, a proactive case is required. I merely withheld the direct debunking's for later. That said, there was a lot of overlap due to how predictable this topic gets.
-> "So, neither us, nor the voters can consider a source from just its abstract."
We do all the time. But yes, I would have willingly pulled out vital snippets from the full report to appease you.
That said, challenging sources is a tactic I wish I saw more of.
-> "we can logically deduct that this is one of the reasons the pay gap exists"
Oh that inflates it, but there was the 7% not explained by such factors.
-> "found that the gender wage gap among college graduates is explained by 33 to 66 percent by different preferences for occupational roles"
See adjusted gender pay gap. I pre-refuted this entire train of thought by not focusing on the non-adjusted gap.
-> "Could you tell me a WIDESPREAD NORM that prohibits women from entering particular fields or at least influences them to make certain choices?"
Don't need to, as I've shown a massive pay gap (average $43K/year) for physicians.
-> "THEMSELVES AND DELIBERATELY"
Again, the adjusted gender pay gap does apples to apples comparisons within any field both work.
-> "SYSTEMIC AND INSTITUTIONALISED PATRIARCHY?"
When you're literally talking about the Federal Government doing something so widespread, you don't get more systemic than that.
-> "Men face equivalent or even more examples of gender norms and/or discrimination"
Relevance to disproving that women are paid less for the same work?
-> "parent to instruct their daughter"
Parents raising their daughters to be little more than slaves, if widespread enough to cause the undeniable gender pay gap, is a fine example of patriarchy in itself.
-> "The unadjusted pay gap shows practically NOTHING"
Actually it shows the literal extent of what's a problem, and what's just random static due to other measurable variables. From 30% (or whatever number people throw around today) down to a meaningful 7%.
---What would have been pro's R2 (1 of 2)---
I. NOTES
It is funny how Barney tries to debunk my argument, that admittedly, they haven't read.
II. REFUTATIONS
"Patriarchy is apparently a “supposed or not” system which places men above women. And the wage gap (even if flawed) is a common example of that.
The patriarchy drives women into lower paying professions by discrimination [1],
The patriarchy and wage gap in the tech sector is decreasing, proving they exists [2], and
The patriarchy, through religion, represses women’s pay [3]."
1) Your third source here cannot count and can't contribute to the debate, as it required paid access of 30 dollars. So, neither us, nor the voters can consider a source from just its abstract.
2) Your second source has indeed some quite interesting conclusions, but I would like to point out the following quotes;
"Research has found several factors that partly explain the wage discrepancies between men and women and which are accounted for to different extents"
"Women’s workforce interruptions and shorter working hours, usually conditioned by having children, affect the gender wage gap, as men typically gain more labour market experience than women (Blau & Kahn, 2017). Similarly, Mihaila (2016) finds that human capital acquired in the labour market is the most influential factor in determining the wage gap. Furthermore, in their study of the United States labour market from 1968 to 1997, Gayle and Golan (2012) relate increases in the female labour share, caused by technological changes, declining costs of producing home goods, higher education levels, and demographic changes in marriage and fertility trends, to declines in the gender wage gap. The importance of demographic changes is moreover shown by Loughran and Zissimopoulos (2009). In their cross-sectional study of household in the United States in 1976 and 2004, they find that, while marriage has negative effects on both male and female wages, childbearing affects only female wages negatively, thus increasing the gender wage gap."
A) Unless you want to say that just because women are of the nature to bear children and have the sole responsibility of actually giving birth to a child, this is an example of patriarchy, which is absurd, we can logically deduct that this is one of the reasons the pay gap exists, that isn't patriarchal in nature.
B) So, the reasons that the pay gap has severely declined is because home goods have become cheaper (so women could do housework better and quicker, thus freeing up time for them to work (not saying they should be doing the housework, but still), and because they have less children and can focus more on their career. Are any of these two reasons patriarchy-induced?
"More recently, researchers considered psychological dissimilarities between men and women. For instance, Niederle and Vesterlund (2007) have shown in an experiment that women tend to avoid competition, while men have a tendency to embrace it. Such differences in behaviour would also be reflected in the gender wage gap. Furthermore, in a longitudinal study of a 1972 high school class cohort in the United States, Daymont and Andrisani (1984) found that the gender wage gap among college graduates is explained by 33 to 66 percent by different preferences for occupational roles and different choices of study fields."
Proves my point.
Last sentence of your source:
"However, further research needs to be done on the direction of causality and other possibly influential factors to the gender wage gap and economic growth than those considered in this study"
Again, it heavily implies my point.
3) About the first source;
“For example, by the time a woman earns her first dollar, her occupational choice is the culmination of years of education, guidance by mentors, expectations set by those who raised her, hiring practices of firms, and widespread norms and expectations about work–family balance held by employers, co-workers, and society. “
EXACTLY as it is about males. When they are children, they also receive guidance from mentors, by society , expectations and widespread norms like “men don’t cry”.
Could you tell me a WIDESPREAD NORM that prohibits women from entering particular fields or at least influences them to make certain choices?
I can do the same for men : Men don’t cry, you are always at fault about what a woman does (heavily implied, not announced) etc
It seems that the writer has “forgot” to mention that more women are in universities than men. Then, why is the case that the pay gap hasn’t been eliminated? Well, it is attributable to the fact that it COULD BE that men and women have different occupational choices, and yes, even though more women are educated, they THEMSELVES AND DELIBERATELY choose to major in low paying fields and sectors (I mean, no patriarchy forces you to choose what you will study in UNI)
---What would have been pro's R2 (2 of 2)---
III. QUESTIONS
I suspect one of the major reasons feminists cry so badly is “Pay Gap, Pay Gap!!!” is because it just happens that women are the least represented in highly paid managerial positions. Why is it that no feminists ever complain about the building sector being occupied 99% by men? Nearly all builders are men. Civilisation doesn’t only happen at the top of the “food chain”. If suddenly all labor workers vanished, CEOs couldn’t do anything about that. The whole society would crumble.
“Key points include:
A. Gender pay gaps within occupations persist, even after accounting for years of experience, hours worked, and education.
B. Decisions women make about their occupation and career do not happen in a vacuum—they are also shaped by society.
C. The long hours required by the highest-paid occupations can make it difficult for women to succeed, since women tend to shoulder the majority of family caretaking duties.
D. Many professions dominated by women are low paid, and professions that have become female-dominated have become lower paid. “
SOURCE?
As are men’s
OK, so?
Have you heard of supply and demand?
C) Somewhere in your sources, it was mentioned that in the federal sector, women face a 0.06 cent deficit of pay due to discrimination.
Is something that is obviously attributable to a few sexist higher-ups an example of SYSTEMIC AND INSTITUTIONALISED PATRIARCHY? I don’t think so…
IV. ARGUMENTS
The fact that women are influenced in their lives and educationally by others to choose a specific example constitutes no patriarchy.
Men face equivalent or even more examples of gender norms and/or discrimination (at least in our times in the western world).
Also, any possible instructions given by parents, mentors etc as mentioned in your source, ARE NOT NECESSARILY AND ALWAYS the result of a gender norm. E.g.
What if a girl is actually timid, very agreeable and “submissive” to their boyfriends or parents. Would it be a social norm for a parent to instruct their daughter to choose a position that is NOT managerial? I mean, this position would obviously be unfitted for this young woman. (Opposite situation about men is also true and a similar situation applies with opposite criteria).
And, since we have no stats on how much of these instructions are actually gender norms or real and good-faith instructions playing to the receiver’s strengths and avoiding weaknesses, we can safely assume that this is not an example of an institutionalized system of power aimed at benefiting men and subjugating women (patriarchy).
This claim is false;
“The key takeaway being that a discussion of the unadjusted, does not rule out the adjusted, as the adjusted is entirely contained within the unadjusted.”
Yes, it does, for the following reasons
The unadjusted pay gap is not an example of patriarchy, as;
The unadjusted pay gap shows practically NOTHING
This is a false syllogism. Imagine saying that (an imaginary fact, for the sake of argument) Greece has the greatest number of homeless people in the world, while I “forgot” to add the explanatory substatistic (adjusted statistic) that it has the greatest number of homeless people PROPORTIONATELY to its population. (so not absolute numbers)
V. CONCLUSIONS
In my argument, I have:
Pointed out abstracts of my opponent’s sources that if not prove, at least heavily imply my point.
Have pointed out the irrelevance and inelligibility of some of his sources
Made 2 important arguments about education and about the relation between unadjusted vs adjusted pay gap.
Posed some important questions that prove my point.
Awaiting your response…
Sorry this debate was confusing for you.
R1 was the only real round of debate, after that with a concession in place I treated it as discussion rather than trying to prove/disprove claims.
-> "are we talking around the world?"
I used international examples to highlight both the harms and the clear connection to misogyny (as opposed to coincidence), yet also used undeniable examples from the Western World. This does highlight the importance of scope limitations when none are directly implied by the topic statement.
-> "How many people have to not pay/underpay women for it to be a patriarchy?"
We did not pick a precise percentage (this debate actually stemmed from a denial that the pay gap exists at all). It would be up to each voter if they believe the problem was shown to be widespread enough and harmful enough to be of significance (e.g., one little girl being underpaid for her lemonade stand out of the 150 million women in the USA, would not imply anything meaningful).
I believe that I was able to prove the adjusted averages at 7% in the USA, highlights the commonness and degree of harm from it to be more than enough to call it a system; and that women are intentionally targeted makes it an example of patriarchy.
-> "matriarchal and patriarchal origins"
Agreed. However, that both sides suck at times, does not change if either sucks.
-> "my question is, can it be proven to a wide extend as malicious or intentional?"
The debate was cut short after R1. While I believe my international examples implied it as malicious (women being murdered for wanting to know how to read), without those implications being challenged I had no reason to further bolster them.
-> "if possible please dont have to have people download pdf's, pay money or create a user to see info."
The downloading of PDFs is for official reports shared with the public as PDFs; often unavoidable but I don't think any of those from me were behind pay walls. I do however frequently cite journeys for which the full data is behind paywalls; but have they almost always have an abstract available to understand the gist of their conclusions.
The thing is because your vote is effectively for 0 points, it amounts to no more than a comment giving feedback.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Melcharaz // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: tied
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
There are three types of tied votes:
(1) Ones which allot zero points. They have no meaningful impact on the debate outcome, and are thus only moderated if warranted for other reasons.
(2) Ones which cancel themselves out. While the category assignments may serve as feedback to the debaters, there is no still meaningful impact for moderation consider. These are in essence the same as the previous type.
(3) Votes which leave arguments tied, but assign other categories. While these need not meet the sufficiency standards for an argument vote, they must still evaluate arguments enough to justify no clear winner. There is however an exception for repeated forfeitures allowing conduct only with no further explanation.
**************************************************
This is an odd one which might be worth looking into
Seems we can't currently change debates from standard to rated, and all open rated ones are now standard. With a little luck this hiccup will be fixed this weekend.
That one sounds really good!
I was just joking around with the Sheriff of Nottingham, but those characters sound so perfectly conflicted!
Got to say, if anyone ever feels like someone is acting stalkeresque towards them, they should probably not go into said stalkers open debate challenges.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Mps1213 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Pretty clear case of basing the vote on opinions taken from debating one of the debaters...
The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
Any awarded point(s) must be based on the content presented inside the debate rounds. Content from the comment section, other votes, forums, your personal experience, etcetera, is ineligible for point allotments.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#based-on-outside-content
**************************************************
Mps1213
02.15.2023 03:19PM
As a whole i believe this is a pretty pointless debate. With that said, pro provides reasons that Lancelot shouldn’t be president. Don’t care about the semantics, follow the rules of the site.
Also I don’t believe someone who has forfeited a total of three rounds in the two debates I’ve had with him should be the president of a debate website. I think he gets into a lot of debates and always assumes his nit picking, trap setting style of debate will win, and I dislike that. I don’t think he should be the president of the site. If I’m being completely honest, no one should be the president of this website because that is a little stupid in my opinion. I love the site and have had fun on here, but to have a debate this technical and deep over the presidency that no one really cares about is goofy.
However if I was forced to vote, it wouldn’t be for Lancelot, unless RM is running because that guy is worse. I don’t necessarily care that he doesn’t fit the criteria, but if the site is going to be this serious about the presidency, as to have an entire debate over the qualifications, I figure the people running should at least meet them. Lancelot doesn’t, and he’s also not a very good debater in my opinion, based off the two debates we’ve had. Admittedly the debates we have had are pretty technical and scientific and maybe that just isn’t his type of debating, but that’s my experience with him.
Pro made the better arguments, simply by stating the rules. Shouldn’t even really be a debate. Either you’re qualified or you aren’t. if you aren’t… then you aren’t.
Sweet! Pinning that one in the mod chat!
---Vote Update---
I wrongly assigned pro sources. He used movie clips to get this lead, and they are the topic of the debate so speak to the style of arguments instead of sources.
This leaves sources as them both doing their due diligence, plus con mentions Rocky and the stuff about memory (which he didn't do much analysis on in his case, mostly just thrown out there letting it speak for itself). Pro defends well against Rocky, as fictional with a focus on the glory of the violence, whereas Cinderella Man focuses on the duel nature of impacts to family (con made it duel nature with the toxic side to it).
...
However, this points the style points of executing his case so well with those sources falling under the preview of argument allotments. This tips the scale towards pro's favor on arguments due to skill at execution. While it is largely pathos, that is part of making an argument more convincing. It is very close to outright giving him arguments, but I'll leave them tied in respect for the well performed job by both sides turning this one into a toss-up.
A couple things from the voting policy...
"All other point categories connect to arguments, ideally enhancing them, but may be weighted separately; particularly if the awardee for arguments nevertheless fell short in another area so as to mitigate their margin of victory."
AND
"It is necessary to explain all awarded points, but a mitigating point against your primary point recipient need not be as detailed for the vote to remain if not good, at least borderline."
To use an analogy, in my voting paradigm earning points is pushing something uphill against an increasing incline. If someone gains arguments, and is in the lead on sources but not by too much, I will probably leave sources tied. This mentality came about due to fluff votes, where people would try to assign more points than the other side, rather than being willing to admit fault to their preferred side.
In this case, your degree of victory was mitigated. Whereas if I favored pro on arguments, sources would be harder for him to earn on top of that.
...
"Things not to award sources for (barring for exceptional cases):
"The subject of the debate… E.g., in a biblical debate, preferring one side’s analysis of the bible itself already speaks directly to the argument points, not exceptional sourcing."
In review, I did violate this, as movie clips from the two are more akin to the bible in the biblical debate than not.
I'll revote with the correction.
Yeah, this looks eerily similar... Here's hoping ChatGPT makes a plagiarism checker!
...
Whether spending your whole life single is a better choice depends on your personal preferences and circumstances. For some people, being single can be a fulfilling and satisfying choice, while for others, being in a committed relationship or marriage can bring them happiness and fulfillment. Here are some things to consider:
Personal happiness: Do you feel happy and fulfilled being single? If so, then continuing to live your life as a single person may be a good choice for you. However, if you feel lonely or unfulfilled, you may want to consider seeking out meaningful relationships.
Life goals: Consider your life goals and whether they align with a single lifestyle. For example, if you prioritize your career or other personal pursuits, being single may be a better choice for you. However, if you want to start a family or have a partner to share your life with, being in a relationship may be more aligned with your goals.
Social support: Do you have a strong network of friends and family who provide social support and companionship? If so, being single may be less of a challenge. However, if you lack social support, being single may increase feelings of loneliness and isolation.
Personal growth: Being single can provide opportunities for personal growth and self-discovery, but so can being in a relationship. Consider whether you value the personal growth opportunities that being single can provide, or if you prefer to grow and learn in the context of a partnership.
Ultimately, the decision to spend your whole life single is a personal one that depends on your unique preferences and circumstances. It's important to make a choice that feels true to yourself and makes you happy and fulfilled.
Via greater impacts, his bolstered his case better. That he ultimately lost arguments, doesn't diminish his superior use of sourcing to support his case.
Were I voting in his favor on arguments, sources would be left in the tied range.
Please present evidence of that, and I will gladly revise my vote.
Regarding Robin Hood Prince of Thieves, I will give credit to 300 and Troy for machoism, but there's a host of other great metrics the hero in Robin Hood has.
Just watch this clip where he defends his wife from a would be rapist who sneaks in the window, and he makes a stand against nepotism and white supremacy. At the same time, he's so compassionate, trying to help the criminal find his missing father. During the fight he even pauses for a moment to romantically reassure his bride with a kiss, assuring the audience it's not about the fight, but the milk he's fighting for!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wg-UpYglAEw
As for his thing against pre-marital sex: I'm no puritan, but it's hard to deny there being something positive about a man sticking to his good Christian values (almost any value set would do; it speaks so much to integrity)... Oh, and he's a humanitarian, in another scene he takes a stand against poverty, by bashing in the slums. Most mayors today have failed to live up to his example of cleaning up parks for everyone's enjoyment; rather than having them be tent cities for the homeless. I know he didn't completely solve that problem, but he greatly decreased the number of homeless people /living/ in that park.
---RFD (intro)---
Pretty much breaking this down by the rounds for these two fighters...
R1 & R2
I’m enjoying the strategies of each debater, one arguing for what a man should be, and the other arguing what a man must not be to embody those same traits.
Pro comes out in the lead for two reasons:
1. The begging scene in which for the good of his family he degraded himself (I suppose that would fall under bravery, while it really should fall under true honor; not to be confused with "honor").
2. "the outcome is more a feeling of relief and satisfaction than appreciation." Hard to deny this about Click.
R3
"too typical and mimicking others, it doesn't quite cut as uniquely good or the 'best' specifically because near replicas exist."
This is a fantastic point from con. Going in I expected two movies of the same formula (possible both starring Russel Crowe) to butt heads, but there is value in uniqueness.
"toxic masculinity"
This would be a good time to emulate pro's own tactics with a clip. Got to say, con's case would have been helped with with the death follow up scene's brilliant use of U2's song Ultra Violent (Light My Way). A hopeful note that change is possible if you act in the now. Also highlight clips of Russel Crowe being a misogynist, would have had great impact. I liked the follow up later of "the proof he is succeeding at becoming a better man are either specifically getting a woman to love and have sex with him as well as winning a fight" which reminds me of some lessons from The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck, and Models (both by Mark Manson... Define your value metrics internally with things you can control, not other people).
"beastly manly spirit"
Love this line.
"Rocky"
A comparative clip would have made this better, but it is what has been missing from the genetic claims.
Oh con goes deep into how memory works.
R4
Pro defends his movie for being based on a true story. This gives it a lot of credibility.
The link at the end of the round solidifies this.
"The main villain is the poverty and the circumstances the main character finds himself in."
That's actually the core conflict, not villain. But point taken, usually the core conflict would be is Rocky going to out punch the other guy.
"Jimmy willingly starves himself and gives his meal to his children"
Dude, that's powerful. Use a clip.
Con's comeback about toxic masculinity, is very well executed with the leadup from the previous round. As we in the audience just watched a fight scene (with clips of starving children for motivation). So we can't separate Russel Crowe from the violence. That said, the clip of Russel Crowe humiliating himself instantly comes to mind as not merely accepting help, but begging for it.
"completely fails to teach is how to lose and improve anyway"
Pro pre-refuted this.
"The entire movie is glorifying ignoring your wife's advice and feelings on matters"
Fair! ... It is assertiveness, but such might not be so ideal afterall.
R5
Alright, I don't know how this will go in the end! Which is damned rare for me (usually I know from reading the contender's R1).
Pro wisely uses bullet point reminders. The final one about Click was not a silver bullet, as it was a summary of con's fun argument to go the opposite way to the same desired goal (semantically different, but to me valid, and made this debate worth reading).
The defense of Toxic Masculinity would have been better had it cut out ten seconds faster, since I went from being teary eyed, to seeing him cut off his wife from talking. Ah, con catches that it's assertiveness as one of the metrics to define this debate (I'm still considering toxic masculinity a negative metric counter to the positive ones, but this example of it is shown to also be one of the desired traits... so more or less a wash).
Con comes back to lay out the core takeaways people are likely to have, and how it is likely to affect them going forward...
---RFD (conclusions)---
Arguments:
This is damned close! Were it not a shared BoP debate, con would easily win via casting sufficient doubt. As is, con casts doubt, but doesn't fully bolster his own movie within the pre-agreed metrics; yet he adds negative metrics that men should of course avoid; and pro's movie falls into them.
Pro's movie gets credit for being based on a true story, con's gets credit for being so damned unique. Yes, pro showed that Rocky is very different, yet it still painted the picture of intuitive similarities to other movies (A Beautiful Mind really should have been used as well). Click had nothing to be at all compared to it.
Con certainly could have strengthened his case with a little direct discussion of how virtues are vices when taken to the excess (as the toxic masculinity implied).
Pro really should have hit hard on the magic in Click, that the solution in it is unattainable unless you happen to meet Christopher Walken, or...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jInlO6-JTww
(FYI, my outside opinion that Click isn't really so unique, is not admissible evidence since it did not come up in the debate; even while it can still be commented upon).
This feels weird because I am in the end I believe pro is ultimately right, and yet the skill with which con argued his case makes me favor his arguments by a small margin. Pro is right that Cinderella Man has a better role model, and yet con's country that Click is a better movie to serve as teacher for those desired traits doesn't seem to be adequately challenged; it was something of a dark mirror to pro's case.
A little more offense against Click, or better defense against the negative traits in Cinderella man, could have tipped this the other way.
While I don't think it controlled my assignment, I will admit to a slight bias in favor of Click (seen it, know the context of every scene; had I known that for Cinderella Man, maybe the hurt wife would not damage it as much via being familiar with scenes of him treating her well).
Conduct:
Conduct for RM's routine forfeiture.
Sources:
This almost inevitably goes to pro. I was left in tears from the well timed use of clips from his movie, making me think that Russel Crowe is the better man to want to be (as opposed to just not being like Adam Sandler; even if such probably has more impact on the zeitgeist). Cons did ok, and his use of out of movie sources was smart, but they ended up being poorly executed wanting the reader to make their own interpretations of large chunks of data, rather than summarizing it in his words and giving links (his R4 was more quotations than his own words).
Two things:
1. Kritik: Role "models" plural! 😁
2. Robin Hood Prince of Thieves is better than either of these two. Defending the country from a tyrant, being scarred and humiliated, even losing family members, and just consider the obvious love scene in which the hero takes a stand against premarital sex "I will not take her, until we are properly wed!" And in the end, he dies trying to save his kingdom...
Read the first two rounds.
I loved Click, and have not seen the other one.
I’m enjoying the strategies of each debater, one raging for what a man should be, and the other arguing what a man must not be to embody those same traits.
I’ll finish this later.
If you did any writeups, I'll gladly respond to them instead of just extending.
Also do you mind if I edit the tags on this debate? Categories have been replaced with tags, for which it looks like there can be several.
I'll be open to a rematch in the future.
I move in a couple weeks, and am following that with a lot of traveling; so a rematch won't be right away.
Your next round is due this morning.
Your next round is due this morning.
Regarding the transitive property, it's neat that Steve Rogers is significantly stronger than the Hulk. I mean Thanos kicks Hulks ass using just raw strength and barely breaks a sweat. Thanos vs Steve was a real contest of strength. So by the power of the transitive property (or more like a bit of bad wring) Steve is at least twice as strong as The Hulk. Conversely, those guys Steve beat up in the elevator, definitely would have taken down big green and jolly.
Another matter is the Conservation of Ninjutsu. One ninja is a threat, but an army of them only has an equal skill to the one divided by the total number of ninjas.
Intelligence_06's vote it fine. It's a null vote, I'm not even going to pull up the spreadsheet.
I wish formatting would allow tables on this site. A debate like this could really benefit from those.
I'll get that round up tonight. Had plans with friends occupy my day.
I'll post my next round tomorrow morning.
I'll post my next round tomorrow morning.
Here's a tool you'll find useful:
https://tiny.cc/DebateArt
I also advise a shorter resolution along the lines of just:
"It's idiotic to take sacred religious texts literally."
Right now someone is likely to argue you have not met Burden of Proof for each and every clause in the resolution, rather than actually defending religion (which I assume to be your intent).
You probably have the sides to this inverted. As con, you are arguing against what you wrote in the title.
It took me a minute... So there's an annoying bit of flawed code in voting, that any unassigned points are awarded to both sides.
So Intelligence's null vote (https://www.debateart.com/debates/4123/vote-links/8571) gave 7 to both sides, since both sides received 7 it's a wash. I'd prefer it if it gave 0 to both sides, but I cannot modify the coding (the owner wants to maintain control on that, and says it'll get fixed eventually).
Mps' vote (https://www.debateart.com/debates/4123/vote-links/8576) creates the 1 point difference, via giving S&G to only one side
When removing votes, I only reference the difference (the tied points are not even considered to be cast for purposes of moderation).
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Americandebater24 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to pro.
>Reason for Decision: "As an atheist, who values logic and reason over faith and thus lacks a belief in Allah and Gods in general, I have to side with the Pro."
>Reason for Mod Action:
Any awarded point(s) must be based on the content presented inside the debate rounds. Content from the comment section, other votes, forums, your personal experience, etcetera, is ineligible for point allotments.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#based-on-outside-content
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: M.H.S // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 5 to con.
>Reason for Decision: "Contender's arguments alone should be the reason he wins."
>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.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#casting-votes
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: M.H.S // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 5 to con.
>Reason for Decision: "............................."
>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.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#casting-votes
**************************************************
Would you all like the short description copied into the main?
"Debate Art has least visitors"
That is basically a free win for anyone who accepts this, because you do not specify anything about the comparison. So if some random blog is shown to have even less visitors, then you lose.
Not all kritiks are rocket science, this one is incredibly obvious.