BrotherD.Thomas
Added: 8 hours ago
#1
Reason:
The reason PRO subjectively won this debate is because CON uses his "opinions" and "hearsay" rather than Biblical FACT like I have shown WeaverofFate in the comment section! Furthermore, Con's long over winded dissertations, equal to reading the book "War and Peace," are not needed if he wasn't so Bible dumbfounded as I have easily shown him to be! Less to the point, is always more!
After R1 you've been facing a pure troll rhetoric. Skim it for any actual rebuttals to your case, and if there are none you can just type "Extend."
Your R2 could have literally been:
"My opponent has conceded we should all be gay, vote con."
While not the debate you desired to have, it can be good practice. There's actually some debaters who will do what he's doing, only add a ton of word salad to it to confuse voters (not certain if they're self aware enough to realize it).
There are also debaters like me, who will include comedy even when making a serious point.
A related thing is someone may play devils advocate, while not actually being a bigoted douchebag.
I advise relying more on your own words, than quotes from sources. A source to backup what you're saying is great, but usually you saying the gist from it and providing the link is plenty.
Based on your limited data, it sounds more likely than not that most those woman sent to prison for having miscarriages, would have had them regardless of drug use.
Consider that not getting proper pre-natal care results in 5x deaths. Should every grieving mother who did not see the doctor enough during her pregnancy be sent to prison?
https://www.womenshealth.gov/a-z-topics/prenatal-care
"Forfeited" is such an improved argument over their last offering, that I am not sure if it's possible for me to win. 🙃
As for arguing I'm bad at debating... It would be a logical paradox, since arguing it well would disprove itself.
And the investigation of Vici was put on hold by my request, allowing them to have this rematch. Granted, since the account seems abandoned, it's probably not worth continuing.
Two questions...
In what percentage of cases does drug use cause/coincide with miscarriage?
In what percentage of cases do miscarriages occur without drug use?
We've been informed that a source a user in this debate utilized (https://coffeemeetsbagel.com/blog/dating-statistics/7-popular-time-year-relationships-break/) was plagiarized from Benjamin Jorgensen, et al., which is posted at Bedbible Research Center (https://bedbible.com/breakup-statistics/).
Presumably based on the dates, Benjamin Jorgensen, et al., periodically updates their report.
I’m bored at an airport, so I’ve started my case. Expect me to use the following source:
https://www.womenshealthmag.com/relationships/a36395721/gender-identity-list/
Got to say, the malice definition is more fair for this debate, since it gives pro a fighting chance. Whereas the legal one only applies in highly oppressive counties.
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 4 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.
The vote describes a final round blitzkrieg, and review of the debate supports this as a wholly objective interpretation. That the voter added extra details, does not invalidate this glaring issue which was the foundation of their vote.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#cheating
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 7 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.
Any unexcused forfeited round merits an automatic conduct loss, but arguments must still be voted on or justified as a tie. Repeated forfeitures waives the need to consider arguments (you still may, but by the choice of one side to miss at least 40% of the debate, the requirement ceases. And yes, this does apply to Choose Winner, which otherwise would not allow conduct to be the sole determinant).
Should either side forfeit every round or every round after their initial arguments (waiving is not an argument), the debate is considered a Full Forfeiture, and any majority votes against the absent side are not moderated (a vote may still be cast in their favor of the absentee, but is eligible for moderation to verify that it is justified via the normal voting standards).
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#forfeitures
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Intelligence_06 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to pro, 5 to con.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote is mostly fine, but the explanation of sources reduces it to literally a fluff vote.
Sources are optional and if awarded require a strong quality lead. Sources go to the side that better supported their case with relevant outside evidence and/or analysis thereof. If both sides have done their research due diligence, these points are usually tied.
A side with unreliable sources may be penalized, but the voter must specify why the sources were unreliable enough to diminish their own case (such as if the other side called attention to the flaws, thereby engaging with sources in a more effective manner with impacts to arguments; thereby flipping the source and harming the opposing argument).
The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
**************************************************
Intelligence_06
Added: 4 hours ago
Reason:
Unless I am partially blind, the topic statement would only be true if on average women do earn the same as men(or more), across all occupations, women and men considered alike. The Wage Gap as a concept also needs to be stated by a feminist movement as a myth, as a requirement in Pro's attempt at definition. This was not fulfilled by Pro, which fails to uphold his own BoP in reference to the confinements set up by Pro the instigator himself.
Pro CONCEDED that under some circumstances and interpretations, women may be seen statistically as earning less, and the latter part of the Pro R1 argument is saying why "Although the wage gap exists, Women are not seen as less competent individuals in society" as paraphased, although I am unsure if Pro will deny or not. Pro's argument also requires external evidence(for example, "You may think that the gender pay gap is determined through a complex set of equations which considers the following"), which Pro fails to provide any, not links nor any directional redirections to help us find it.
On the other hand, Con's argument required no external evidence and he pointed out the lack of sources and the blatant concession on the other faction.
Args to Con. Sources to Con because although neither had sources Pro is the one that desperately needs it while Con is not. Conduct to Pro for Con forfeiture.
This much talking about a debate is fine. The only problem is when people intentionally harass voters.
The preciseness of the resolution made it hard to uphold. You needed both to support that slavery is still legal (you indeed showed a loophole), and that specifically African Americans somehow prove that. To this, pro was able to cast sufficient doubt that they are slaves today.
A debate just on if African Americans were still used as slaves by the prison system in the 20th century, you would have plenty of historical cases to cite (particularly proven wrongful imprisonments).
As for the treatment of African Americans by our justice system: It is utterly deplorable.
Sadly, many Americans fall into the fallacious thinking that because the justice system abuses them, they must deserve it. A video of a cop literally murdering someone isn't enough to sway that type of person.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3415-derek-chauvin-was-not-a-racist
You missed a round, but can still recover. Intelligence is a damned fine debater, but there's still a contest to be had if you still believe abortion to be murder.
I'm entering finals week, and I have a major project due tomorrow night; plus I need to knock out an extra credit assignment if I am to get a decent grade.
I will not be able to properly read and evaluate this.
>Reported Vote: YouFound_Lxam // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 6 to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>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.
To cast a sufficient vote, for each category awarded, a voter must explicitly perform the following tasks:
(1) Provide specific references to each side’s utilization within the said category.
(2) Weigh the impacts against each other, including if any precluded others.
(3) Explain the decision within the greater context of the debate.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#casting-votes
**************************************************
These so called "pro-life" protesters never protest outside the veterinary clinic against cat abortions, and cats > people, therefore if it's about life they really should be more vested in preventing cat abortions than human abortions...
BrotherD.Thomas
Added: 8 hours ago
#1
Reason:
The reason PRO subjectively won this debate is because CON uses his "opinions" and "hearsay" rather than Biblical FACT like I have shown WeaverofFate in the comment section! Furthermore, Con's long over winded dissertations, equal to reading the book "War and Peace," are not needed if he wasn't so Bible dumbfounded as I have easily shown him to be! Less to the point, is always more!
The voting time cannot be changed at this point, even with moderator powers.
After R1 you've been facing a pure troll rhetoric. Skim it for any actual rebuttals to your case, and if there are none you can just type "Extend."
Your R2 could have literally been:
"My opponent has conceded we should all be gay, vote con."
While not the debate you desired to have, it can be good practice. There's actually some debaters who will do what he's doing, only add a ton of word salad to it to confuse voters (not certain if they're self aware enough to realize it).
There are also debaters like me, who will include comedy even when making a serious point.
A related thing is someone may play devils advocate, while not actually being a bigoted douchebag.
Thanks for voting, and for the Star Wars comparison!
Thanks for the lighthearted debate. I hope to see you around.
“ we have no reason to think that He (or She/It?) exists at all.”
A fairly easy motion to disprove. I advise being more careful with your phrasing in future.
I'm curious: what are your thoughts to con's analogies?
https://onlysky.media/hemant-mehta/conservative-dennis-prager-if-theres-no-god-then-murder-isnt-wrong/
Voting period ends in one day. I might make the time to vote, but in case I don't, bumping it to the top of the list.
I advise relying more on your own words, than quotes from sources. A source to backup what you're saying is great, but usually you saying the gist from it and providing the link is plenty.
Frequently, but not inherently.
Apologies, R3’s source list contains an error.
#9 got listed twice, so #10 should be discounted.
11 becomes 10, and 12 becomes 11.
25%, vs what percent for drug users?
Based on your limited data, it sounds more likely than not that most those woman sent to prison for having miscarriages, would have had them regardless of drug use.
Consider that not getting proper pre-natal care results in 5x deaths. Should every grieving mother who did not see the doctor enough during her pregnancy be sent to prison?
https://www.womenshealth.gov/a-z-topics/prenatal-care
That all caps MUST is most likely going to decide this debate.
Given that they claim to have won every debate they lost, I would not expect them to abide by their little bet.
"Forfeited" is such an improved argument over their last offering, that I am not sure if it's possible for me to win. 🙃
As for arguing I'm bad at debating... It would be a logical paradox, since arguing it well would disprove itself.
And the investigation of Vici was put on hold by my request, allowing them to have this rematch. Granted, since the account seems abandoned, it's probably not worth continuing.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=docking
Two questions...
In what percentage of cases does drug use cause/coincide with miscarriage?
In what percentage of cases do miscarriages occur without drug use?
Three hours remain for you to post your argument.
Had you read the article in question, you wouldn’t have posted that.
https://www.themarshallproject.org/2022/09/01/they-lost-their-pregnancies-then-prosecutors-sent-them-to-prison
Credit to: Benjamin Jorgensen, et al.
We've been informed that a source a user in this debate utilized (https://coffeemeetsbagel.com/blog/dating-statistics/7-popular-time-year-relationships-break/) was plagiarized from Benjamin Jorgensen, et al., which is posted at Bedbible Research Center (https://bedbible.com/breakup-statistics/).
Presumably based on the dates, Benjamin Jorgensen, et al., periodically updates their report.
Interestingly, women are occasionally already sent to prison for accidental miscarriages.
I’m bored at an airport, so I’ve started my case. Expect me to use the following source:
https://www.womenshealthmag.com/relationships/a36395721/gender-identity-list/
If you’d all like the description and/or title modified now that a topic has been selected, such can be done by any moderator.
It’s been two years…
You argued uphill against a truism, which is commendable, but you may as well have been trying to argue wolves are not canines.
In the second Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy book they explored this concept. talking cows which try to pressure you into eating then
Merriam-Webster is more sporting.
There’s sound arguments to show malice, but none to prove legal is secretly illegal.
Got to say, the malice definition is more fair for this debate, since it gives pro a fighting chance. Whereas the legal one only applies in highly oppressive counties.
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 4 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.
The vote describes a final round blitzkrieg, and review of the debate supports this as a wholly objective interpretation. That the voter added extra details, does not invalidate this glaring issue which was the foundation of their vote.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#cheating
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 7 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.
Any unexcused forfeited round merits an automatic conduct loss, but arguments must still be voted on or justified as a tie. Repeated forfeitures waives the need to consider arguments (you still may, but by the choice of one side to miss at least 40% of the debate, the requirement ceases. And yes, this does apply to Choose Winner, which otherwise would not allow conduct to be the sole determinant).
Should either side forfeit every round or every round after their initial arguments (waiving is not an argument), the debate is considered a Full Forfeiture, and any majority votes against the absent side are not moderated (a vote may still be cast in their favor of the absentee, but is eligible for moderation to verify that it is justified via the normal voting standards).
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#forfeitures
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Intelligence_06 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to pro, 5 to con.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote is mostly fine, but the explanation of sources reduces it to literally a fluff vote.
Sources are optional and if awarded require a strong quality lead. Sources go to the side that better supported their case with relevant outside evidence and/or analysis thereof. If both sides have done their research due diligence, these points are usually tied.
A side with unreliable sources may be penalized, but the voter must specify why the sources were unreliable enough to diminish their own case (such as if the other side called attention to the flaws, thereby engaging with sources in a more effective manner with impacts to arguments; thereby flipping the source and harming the opposing argument).
The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
**************************************************
Intelligence_06
Added: 4 hours ago
Reason:
Unless I am partially blind, the topic statement would only be true if on average women do earn the same as men(or more), across all occupations, women and men considered alike. The Wage Gap as a concept also needs to be stated by a feminist movement as a myth, as a requirement in Pro's attempt at definition. This was not fulfilled by Pro, which fails to uphold his own BoP in reference to the confinements set up by Pro the instigator himself.
Pro CONCEDED that under some circumstances and interpretations, women may be seen statistically as earning less, and the latter part of the Pro R1 argument is saying why "Although the wage gap exists, Women are not seen as less competent individuals in society" as paraphased, although I am unsure if Pro will deny or not. Pro's argument also requires external evidence(for example, "You may think that the gender pay gap is determined through a complex set of equations which considers the following"), which Pro fails to provide any, not links nor any directional redirections to help us find it.
On the other hand, Con's argument required no external evidence and he pointed out the lack of sources and the blatant concession on the other faction.
Args to Con. Sources to Con because although neither had sources Pro is the one that desperately needs it while Con is not. Conduct to Pro for Con forfeiture.
Interestingly, a few women have been sent to prison for unplanned miscarriages.
“East, West, just points of the compass, each as stupid as the other.” -Dr. No
Ironic that the person who writes "Libertarianism" fails to show up to the fight.
This much talking about a debate is fine. The only problem is when people intentionally harass voters.
The preciseness of the resolution made it hard to uphold. You needed both to support that slavery is still legal (you indeed showed a loophole), and that specifically African Americans somehow prove that. To this, pro was able to cast sufficient doubt that they are slaves today.
A debate just on if African Americans were still used as slaves by the prison system in the 20th century, you would have plenty of historical cases to cite (particularly proven wrongful imprisonments).
https://info.debateart.com/style-guide#writing-a-strong-resolution
...
As for the treatment of African Americans by our justice system: It is utterly deplorable.
Sadly, many Americans fall into the fallacious thinking that because the justice system abuses them, they must deserve it. A video of a cop literally murdering someone isn't enough to sway that type of person.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3415-derek-chauvin-was-not-a-racist
It prevents recidivism…
You missed a round, but can still recover. Intelligence is a damned fine debater, but there's still a contest to be had if you still believe abortion to be murder.
I'm entering finals week, and I have a major project due tomorrow night; plus I need to knock out an extra credit assignment if I am to get a decent grade.
I will not be able to properly read and evaluate this.
The first debate I initiated on one of these sites, was on if prison is more voluntary than not. The jokes I used haven’t aged well.
I was more thinking someone would pull one on you.
Ah, the old prisoners are slaves argument. Expect a kritik.
https://info.debateart.com/kritik-guide
>Reported Vote: YouFound_Lxam // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 6 to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>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.
To cast a sufficient vote, for each category awarded, a voter must explicitly perform the following tasks:
(1) Provide specific references to each side’s utilization within the said category.
(2) Weigh the impacts against each other, including if any precluded others.
(3) Explain the decision within the greater context of the debate.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#casting-votes
**************************************************
YouFound_Lxam
Added: 2 hours ago
Reason:
Pro, had a more laid out argument
Pro provided more sources than Con
Pro worded their arguments better
These so called "pro-life" protesters never protest outside the veterinary clinic against cat abortions, and cats > people, therefore if it's about life they really should be more vested in preventing cat abortions than human abortions...
Decent chance someone will vote for you on this one in that time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFRi2xsei_o
I've been fine with deleting debates in the past to be extra sporting.
However, I do not care to reward liars. If you're not lying, you should just go back to the 18th again and post it then.
Just skimmed a little, and this looks like a good debate with the immediate curve ball from con at the start.
I'll try to make the time to read it in depth.