“ nehhhh, [sigh] well ofc another forfeit i am judging./meowwww”
This vote has been removed to allow error correction. Both sides had arguments, the site is just broken for one of them forcing them to be posted in the comment section.
I really view this as a debate on if definition of personhood X would logically be applied to group Y.
If X is the optimal definition, would be its own debate. Of course were X a bastard definition (such as all persons have four wheels and a XM radio) that would invite Kritiks against it within this debate.
I disagree with it being sneaky, especially since it’s a common definition in use… Human beings still struggle with the issue of if /those/ humans count as people (or sometimes even human at all).
Looks like I'm first up to bat. Interesting pitches from both teams, and the only way this is goings to be a successful vote for me is to find a sensible logic in a participant's argument. I can do that. Let's get rid of the negatives: neither participant made any effort to substantiate their arguments by any credible sourcing although both made mention of supporting data. If the data exists, the Debate rules of DA stipulate they should be employed as part of argument. I know there are studies and white papers and such supporting both arguments. I have seen them and read them, so they are accessible and citable. Just mentioning they exist without making use of them is lazy and irresponsible for this site and this debate. No win on this feature for either side. Cite your sources. period.
Both conducted themselves well. Tie
Both used legible language. Tie
So, it comes down to argument. One of Con's arguments was that 80% percent of teens watch porn anyway, and that it is a feature of society virtually impossible to enforce its ban. Another argument oic that 90% successful enforcement is necessary to the cost/benefit ratio.I have seen studies on both issues on a variety of other topics, and this one,, and they are able to be cited, but they are presented, instead, as personal opinion without citation, so I cannot buy the argument on that assurance, alone. Sorry.
While acknowledging that enforcement of any ban would be difficult, Pro makes an argument that enforcement of behavior is not the purpose of a ban, but just setting an expected standard. That, too, is presented, as said, without back-up data, but it is a more sensible argument in any case. That is the factual result of any law of society: 100% prevention of an unwanted behavioral result is never expected, but then, we do not know how many ships are saved by a lighthouse in dangerous waters, the stat is only those that fail, anyway. Con's argument is a more successful argument, because arguing that a lighthouse is not enforced, and therefore should not exist will guarantee failure.
Con wins on argument.
My impression is pro would like people to have to click a box to verify they are 17 or up when accessing porn sites, and con would like it to be 16 and up.
Neither is arguing for anyone of any age to be able to participate in porn, nor for the legalization of porn featuring them, nor for anyone to intentionally show them porn. (Or so I would assume, I haven’t read either case)
It’s an uncomfortable topic to be sure, but I doubt it violates any laws.
No real suggestion. More of just an observation of self evident quality in this debate.
If I didn’t have so much going on I’d try to vote, but I’m heavily distracted by other matters. But again, what I’ve skimmed from both sides is really good (honestly, if either was weak then I could knock out a vote without fear of misapplying my analysis).
An example is on abortion debates there used to be Yes Men who jumped into the voting section to fluff whomever argued against abortion, regardless of all content in the debate…
That said, mild manipulation of bias without relying upon it, can be helpful. Sticking with the abortion example, either side in such a debate is usually better off sticking to known terminology… I’m pretty sure I deeply offended some people by identifying true pro-abortion politicians (pedophile “conservative” politicians trying to get teenage girls pregnant to up the number of abortions, so that they could then complain about it), which is a hill I’ll die on, but was also an inadvertent Red Herring against myself (for some precise abortion topics it would not be, but for most it’s missing the point).
Wyited switched accounts a long time ago, Most likely you typed W Y L, instead of W Y I when trying to tag him.
Anyways, you've got basically a day to post a response in the argument tab. You of course not limited to the ones I mentioned. You could even try to a racism Kritik (I don't advise this one, as it usually relies on the audience being Yes Men).
To save you a few headaches, try to imagine the possibility that Wyited is trolling with the intention of bringing attention to issues.
Hopefully you won't forfeit the remaining rounds...
Your basic paths to victory are:
1. The boring and expected approach, saying it's all explainable therefore "somehow" doesn't exist.
2. Absolute refutation, which is to say undermine each contention of pro's case.
3. Run a Semantics Kritik! The definition clearly states "an unfair advantage" but if you can show that it's perfectly fair by virtue of the divine bloodline of King Arthur (or whatever other white supremacist idol), then whites do not have an unfair advantage, thus not privlidge... Heck, you could take this a step further and show how disadvantages most white people are, being so very special in a way that only eugenics leaders like Trump recognize, and yet not all are born into the top 1% of wealth on the planet.
The last one is both joking, but would be a genuine tactic Wylted could pull off easily were the sides reversed.
ChatGPT is wonky. I am gradually getting it trained up, but it’s got leagues to go.
I wouldn’t trust an AI to vote on any complex debate. The single refinement I made for it on this one (which took multiple tries) was telling it that Shane.Roy was not a participant in this debate.
One of the first debate reviews I had it do, it turned out to have decided cons arguments were no good so wrote new better ones. Harmless in a review and easy to correct, but detrimental in a vote.
A better topic would be that it should take less debates to unlock said privileges... A bit on the nose, but more defensible as a legit debate which occurred (not that we're being sticklers for it these days, just try to be fair to both sides when you vote).
I tried having ChatGPT do a breakdown on this debate (it's not what I used when voting, I ended up scanning more). But here is the breakdown it provided...
== Debate Title ==
'''For children, time spent in school in most cases should be limited to 2 hours a day'''
==== Arguments Initiated by Pro (TheGreatSunGod) ====
* '''Contention''' (➕): '''School causes chronic sleep deprivation in children.'''<br>{{Q|Chronic sleep deprivation is rampant among children. The cause is primarily the demands of school.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 1}}
:* '''Rebuttal''' (➖): '''Sleep deprivation is not necessarily due to school; students can still sleep 8 hours.'''<br>{{Q|They only need 8 hours of sleep, so if they sleep from 9pm-5am, it will not result in chronic sleep deprivation.|TheRizzler, Round 2}}
::* '''Defense''' (➕): '''8 hours is insufficient for children.'''<br>{{Q|The average amount of sleep required for a 13-year-old is 9.25 hours.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 2}}
:::* '''Rebuttal''' (➖): '''Most students do get enough sleep.'''<br>''NO DIRECT QUOTE IDENTIFIED''
::::* '''Defense''' (➕): '''Most of these studies are flawed or untrue.'''<br>''NO DIRECT QUOTE IDENTIFIED''
* '''Contention''' (➕): '''Children retain very little from long school days.'''<br>{{Q|A 2015 study of high school students found that students only retained 20% of what they were taught.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 1}}
:* '''Rebuttal''' (➖): '''Some students can retain a lot with good methods.'''<br>{{Q|The effectiveness of memory is up to the student and the techniques they use.|TheRizzler, Round 2}}
::* '''Defense''' (➕): '''Children don't all have access to ideal study environments.'''<br>{{Q|That's not an excuse. The average student doesn't retain much; you can't expect perfection.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 2}}
* '''Contention''' (➕): '''Reduced school time promotes better mental health.'''<br>{{Q|Shorter school time could lead to students being more relaxed and less depressed.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 1}}
:* '''Rebuttal''' (➖): '''School time is necessary structure.'''<br>{{Q|Structure and discipline are necessary, especially for kids who can't get it at home.|TheRizzler, Round 2}}
::* '''Defense''' (➕): '''Structure doesn’t have to come from school.'''<br>{{Q|You can give children structure in other ways, such as planned activities.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 2}}
* '''Contention''' (➕): '''Bullying and peer pressure are amplified in long school days.'''<br>{{Q|If kids only go to school for 2 hours, there's less time to be bullied.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 1}}
:* '''Rebuttal''' (➖): '''Bullying occurs regardless of hours.'''<br>{{Q|If they get bullied, it will happen regardless of how long they're there.|TheRizzler, Round 2}}
::* '''Defense''' (➕): '''Less time reduces exposure.'''<br>{{Q|Less time around bullies means fewer opportunities to be bullied.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 2}}
* '''Contention''' (➕): '''Children would be happier if their time was better respected.'''<br>{{Q|Respecting children’s time is respecting them as people.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 1}}
:* '''Rebuttal''' (➖): '''Children lack maturity to make such decisions.'''<br>{{Q|You're arguing that we should let children decide what's best for them.|TheRizzler, Round 2}}
::* '''Defense''' (➕): '''Autonomy helps development.'''<br>{{Q|Giving children some choice and freedom helps them grow.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 2}}
* '''Contention''' (➖): '''A 2-hour school day is insufficient to teach all necessary subjects.'''<br>{{Q|With only 2 hours of school, you would not be able to cover reading, math, history, science, etc.|TheRizzler, Round 1}}
:* '''Rebuttal''' (➕): '''Learning can happen outside school.'''<br>{{Q|You don’t need 8 hours of school to learn math.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 2}}
::* '''Defense''' (➖): '''Many students won’t learn outside school.'''<br>{{Q|You say they could do it at home, but many wouldn’t.|TheRizzler, Round 2}}
:::* '''Rebuttal''' (➕): '''Parents and technology can support at-home learning.'''<br>{{Q|If you have involved parents or even just good software, students can thrive.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 2}}
::::* '''Defense''' (➖): '''Not all families have access to those resources.'''<br>{{Q|This assumes privilege. Many students don’t have that kind of support.|TheRizzler, Round 2}}
* '''Contention''' (➖): '''The 2-hour proposal lacks practicality.'''<br>{{Q|This would be an unworkable shift in how education is done.|TheRizzler, Round 1}}
:* '''Rebuttal''' (➕): '''Other countries succeed with short hours.'''<br>{{Q|Finland has shorter school hours and still ranks high in education.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 1}}
::* '''Defense''' (➖): '''Cultural and structural differences make comparisons invalid.'''<br>{{Q|Finland has a different society, economy, and values. It’s not an easy comparison.|TheRizzler, Round 2}}
== Result ==
The voting period is still open, and the result is currently tied. This page presents a tiered breakdown of the full debate to aid readers and potential voters in assessing the strength of the arguments on both sides.
=== Evaluation Summary ===
* '''Logical Clarity''': Slight edge to '''Con''' for pragmatic framing and consistent rebuttals.
* '''Use of Evidence''': Relatively even; '''Pro''' offers some studies, while '''Con''' uses common-sense rebuttals.
* '''Debate Structure''': '''Con''' consistently responds to and frames issues across rounds.
* '''Rhetorical Framing''': '''Pro''' appeals to reform and autonomy; '''Con''' focuses on feasibility and equity.
'''Recommended Vote''':
* Vote '''Pro''' if you prioritize idealism, student-centered reform, or philosophical values.
* Vote '''Con''' if you value pragmatic feasibility, systemic equity, and rebuttal discipline.
Under traditional criteria (burden of proof, refutation, impact): '''Con''' holds a slight edge overall.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: bronskibeat // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 6 t o 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
**************************************************
bronskibeat
04.23.2025 10:17AM
Reason:
This was an interesting debate, and I enjoyed reading what both parties had to offer. Con has a unique style that can be difficult to follow at times, but their core arguments were clearly expressed. Con's arguments could have also used more sourcing. Ultimately, Con's arguments were a bit all over the place, and could stand against further scrutiny.
Pro offered very thorough, well-sourced, and strong arguments. Rebutted Con's arguments successfully point by point while offering consistent citations.
Someone remind me at the end, and I’ll make a wiki page in this, in large part to put the arguments into proper order.
Oh and Lancealot, not required by any means, but to make things easier on readers, the link to pro’s R1 is https://www.debateart.com/debates/6075/comments/63600
As a moderator, I find it is often needed (just consider the spam bots) even if it would be better if people were better and thus did not need to be censored.
He's the only one most people have heard of, so there might not be a challenger. If not, try changing the resolution to world leader (to which I'd say he needs to be in the top five).
I wrote it because I’ve seen it happen to too many times. Multiple of the examples were not hypothetical, but rather straight from things I’ve seen in the last year. There’s a Reptilian Heuristic page which has another personal account of that fallacy.
I did a writeup on this debate (heavily AI assisted, so apologies for any errors):
https://debate.miraheze.org/wiki/THB_in_the_Efficacy_of_Gender_Affirming_Care
The following vote has been reported:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/5926-one-should-believe-in-and-practice-the-direct-inverse-of-everything-christians-believe-in-and-practice?open_tab=votes&votes_page=1&vote_number=1
It has supporting information at:
#10 https://www.debateart.com/debates/5926/comments/62827
#18 https://www.debateart.com/debates/5926/comments/62879
In general, votes need not be perfect. Heck in my own vote I mislabeled pro as con at one point (context was still obvious IMO, but still a flaw).
If you want to formally report any vote, click the three dots next to the vote number to open the menu with report being probably the only option. As I voted on this debate, I'd prefer it if whiteflame reviewed any vote (you can also tag him and state that you are reporting whatever vote).
Speaking of which, my vote has been reported, so I need to message him or tag him in a comment (he checks the report log sometimes, but should my vote be removed I'd like to have the time to reread the debate and revote).
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Americandebater24 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 7 to pro.
>Reason for Decision: Full forfeit on Cons part.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote has been removed to enable them to revote at their discretion.
**************************************************
I did a little experiment using this debate:
https://debate.miraheze.org/wiki/Direct_Inversion_of_Christianity_(Tiered)
This was created with ChatGPT, with only minimal input from me (mostly formatting, and the ever annoying need to tell it that quotes must be direct quotes rather than paraphrases).
As someone who read the debate, it's cool to see the differences in where such a tool focuses.
I think I was pretty clear, but a couple pieces were a little implicit, so…
1. I’m one of the most active voters.
2. I consider the definitions in the description to be a type of Scarecrow Argument (but there are other fallacies it could soundly be called), rather than valid definitions from any authority.
3. Because the description is so ingenuine, I will not dogmatically obey it in my vote.
You will still likely win. However, if your argument consists of pointing to the fallacies you put into the description instead of offering sound reasoning, your case will be crippled by it.
I'm going to get a jump start on this debate (while both have the opportunity to incorporate any feedback if they so desire).
Right off the start, that description should really give a scope statement. Like everything Christians believe and practice, is both broad and self contradictory due to the many branches of Christianity and the far wider number of Christians themselves (I don't yet know if either raises the point that Christian does not equal Christianity as a whole or the bible). Also qualifier word "direct" in the title significantly raises BoP (without it there'd be a wider range that would meet the BoP)
R1: Pro
I assume pro meets their basic BoP unless challenged.
Theism VS Atheism:
Pro is actually wrong to call this an Ad Hominem. It is however an obvious Scarecrow Argument, which risks being a Phantom Argument.
https://debate.miraheze.org/wiki/Scarecrow_Argument
Appeal to authority VS genuine compassion:
Bad start, but then "The Bible supports slavery, genocide, burning "witches" at the stake, stoning faggots etc. " is a solid point, as much as a source would have been fantastic to back up that the bible does those things which it doesn't really do (I have an open mind, and can consider this point won if unchallenged or unsuccessfully challenged; but I'll still call out errors).
Hating pleasure VS hedonism:
"Suffering is treated as a virtue while pleasure is treated as evil in Christianity" if unchallenged, this is a great argument; and actually one you could have backed up with biblical sources.
Continuing on feels like reading a Gish Gallop; it reduces the impact of the individual points, as it makes me more inclined to think of them as a single contention rather than a nuanced set of them.
...
R1 con:
Con hits hard and keeps nailing in from "Pro characterizes that religion as a single entity when, in fact, Christianity has some 200 separate denominations just in the U.S."
He even brings up an interesting point that it would be impossible to do the opposite of such a wide set of beliefs.
“do unto others…” while using it to compare Christianity to another religion, raises the point of something which people intuitively should not reject (I'd have liked to see that part of it more in focus). He does come back to this a little later adding "being humble, forgiving, and generous" as values in Christianity one ought to not do the opposite of.
Oh a call for sources, great to see that! Pro may actually deliver, but it creates a great falsifiability moment.
...
R2 pro:
"different denominations share core beliefs and values. " a mild moving of the goalposts, but it fits the themes of the debate enough to have validity.
The return to the Gish Gallop is actually painful... Maybe were it presented here as a numbered list it'd be less bad, but the way it's offered it's be better to just say "extend all arguments from my previous round," and thematically explain why they still hold weight (instead of individually).
I did not initially catch it due to the potty mouth, but "The opposite of Christianity is veganism" is a pretty good point due to the inclusion of "heart disease."
"This isn't even relevant since I'm not a Muslim" leaves the core do unto others bit unchallenged... Ah, God doesn't obey it in the bible isn't the worst point (but kinda misses the point of if those words inspire good actions from Christians or not)
Oh damn, I did not expect to see any sources from pro. Great job! Cherry picked evidence in all, but I'll count it (without these sources would have surely gone to con, but now I'll leave them in the tied range).
Basically this site works differently than just about all of the others. Two people go head to head in each debate. Others I've seen are more like a list of points made by every random person, without any conclusion.
If it can’t be resolved, it would be good conduct to for you to post a link to his comments post in your next round. The proper link is: https://www.debateart.com/debates/5926/comments/62809
This is of course not required. You may argue however you’d like. Some voters will probably discount it for being posted wrong; but I believe in the spirit of fairness.
>Reported Vote: MAV99 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 7 to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Quite obviously this is a rare example of a true vote bomb. Please review the voting standards before casting future votes
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
**************************************************
Pro very effectively demonstrated in R1, using Scripture and reasoning to show a distinction in persons. Especially with his main body. Con then brings in other references that seem to point out a univocality in God which Pro in R2 effectively answered with:
"Although the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share one divine nature, they remain truly distinct Persons." Using the word "nature" here pretty much sealed the debate as it is a term of universality meaning it is said of many things and also "person" which is a term of particularity. That is in accordance with basic rules of logic and definitions.
While Con does seem to have a decent grasp of scripture, it seems to me he is confusing "Holy Spirit" with "holy and spiritual". Those two phrases refer to different things. Also his whole:
"So you read about the spirit interceding and your understanding is .....well there has to be two because that's the only way it "makes sense" to me." is rather undermining Con since he is trying to do the same thing. It would be unreasonable to simply read the words at face value and leave it at that without using our God-given reason to delve into it.
It's too late to remove, but in future please have your votes reflect your reading of the debate.
“ nehhhh, [sigh] well ofc another forfeit i am judging./meowwww”
This vote has been removed to allow error correction. Both sides had arguments, the site is just broken for one of them forcing them to be posted in the comment section.
I have retired, but this is tempting... No, I'll let someone else make a mockery of this one (or win it in a boring way, their choice).
Kritiks are launched for any number of reasons. Ultimately, definitions set the goalposts, and people love to move those when they can.
Of course, I much prefer it when debaters work out definition disagreements prior to the debate.
I really view this as a debate on if definition of personhood X would logically be applied to group Y.
If X is the optimal definition, would be its own debate. Of course were X a bastard definition (such as all persons have four wheels and a XM radio) that would invite Kritiks against it within this debate.
I disagree with it being sneaky, especially since it’s a common definition in use… Human beings still struggle with the issue of if /those/ humans count as people (or sometimes even human at all).
Previous vote (removed by request):
Looks like I'm first up to bat. Interesting pitches from both teams, and the only way this is goings to be a successful vote for me is to find a sensible logic in a participant's argument. I can do that. Let's get rid of the negatives: neither participant made any effort to substantiate their arguments by any credible sourcing although both made mention of supporting data. If the data exists, the Debate rules of DA stipulate they should be employed as part of argument. I know there are studies and white papers and such supporting both arguments. I have seen them and read them, so they are accessible and citable. Just mentioning they exist without making use of them is lazy and irresponsible for this site and this debate. No win on this feature for either side. Cite your sources. period.
Both conducted themselves well. Tie
Both used legible language. Tie
So, it comes down to argument. One of Con's arguments was that 80% percent of teens watch porn anyway, and that it is a feature of society virtually impossible to enforce its ban. Another argument oic that 90% successful enforcement is necessary to the cost/benefit ratio.I have seen studies on both issues on a variety of other topics, and this one,, and they are able to be cited, but they are presented, instead, as personal opinion without citation, so I cannot buy the argument on that assurance, alone. Sorry.
While acknowledging that enforcement of any ban would be difficult, Pro makes an argument that enforcement of behavior is not the purpose of a ban, but just setting an expected standard. That, too, is presented, as said, without back-up data, but it is a more sensible argument in any case. That is the factual result of any law of society: 100% prevention of an unwanted behavioral result is never expected, but then, we do not know how many ships are saved by a lighthouse in dangerous waters, the stat is only those that fail, anyway. Con's argument is a more successful argument, because arguing that a lighthouse is not enforced, and therefore should not exist will guarantee failure.
Con wins on argument.
My impression is pro would like people to have to click a box to verify they are 17 or up when accessing porn sites, and con would like it to be 16 and up.
Neither is arguing for anyone of any age to be able to participate in porn, nor for the legalization of porn featuring them, nor for anyone to intentionally show them porn. (Or so I would assume, I haven’t read either case)
It’s an uncomfortable topic to be sure, but I doubt it violates any laws.
Someone remind me in a few days and I should be up for voting.
That said. I wish the terms were defined in the description.
No real suggestion. More of just an observation of self evident quality in this debate.
If I didn’t have so much going on I’d try to vote, but I’m heavily distracted by other matters. But again, what I’ve skimmed from both sides is really good (honestly, if either was weak then I could knock out a vote without fear of misapplying my analysis).
In this context, someone who votes their bias.
An example is on abortion debates there used to be Yes Men who jumped into the voting section to fluff whomever argued against abortion, regardless of all content in the debate…
That said, mild manipulation of bias without relying upon it, can be helpful. Sticking with the abortion example, either side in such a debate is usually better off sticking to known terminology… I’m pretty sure I deeply offended some people by identifying true pro-abortion politicians (pedophile “conservative” politicians trying to get teenage girls pregnant to up the number of abortions, so that they could then complain about it), which is a hill I’ll die on, but was also an inadvertent Red Herring against myself (for some precise abortion topics it would not be, but for most it’s missing the point).
Wyited switched accounts a long time ago, Most likely you typed W Y L, instead of W Y I when trying to tag him.
Anyways, you've got basically a day to post a response in the argument tab. You of course not limited to the ones I mentioned. You could even try to a racism Kritik (I don't advise this one, as it usually relies on the audience being Yes Men).
To save you a few headaches, try to imagine the possibility that Wyited is trolling with the intention of bringing attention to issues.
Hopefully you won't forfeit the remaining rounds...
Your basic paths to victory are:
1. The boring and expected approach, saying it's all explainable therefore "somehow" doesn't exist.
2. Absolute refutation, which is to say undermine each contention of pro's case.
3. Run a Semantics Kritik! The definition clearly states "an unfair advantage" but if you can show that it's perfectly fair by virtue of the divine bloodline of King Arthur (or whatever other white supremacist idol), then whites do not have an unfair advantage, thus not privlidge... Heck, you could take this a step further and show how disadvantages most white people are, being so very special in a way that only eugenics leaders like Trump recognize, and yet not all are born into the top 1% of wealth on the planet.
The last one is both joking, but would be a genuine tactic Wylted could pull off easily were the sides reversed.
ChatGPT is wonky. I am gradually getting it trained up, but it’s got leagues to go.
I wouldn’t trust an AI to vote on any complex debate. The single refinement I made for it on this one (which took multiple tries) was telling it that Shane.Roy was not a participant in this debate.
One of the first debate reviews I had it do, it turned out to have decided cons arguments were no good so wrote new better ones. Harmless in a review and easy to correct, but detrimental in a vote.
In casual conversation, of course... Trying to quantify it, as a clear statistically significant occurrence today, not so easy to do.
That said, it is easy to prove among cat populations, but such has nothing to do with this debate.
You'd be surprised how fast I've gotten at those (at least unrefined ones like that).
A better topic would be that it should take less debates to unlock said privileges... A bit on the nose, but more defensible as a legit debate which occurred (not that we're being sticklers for it these days, just try to be fair to both sides when you vote).
I tried having ChatGPT do a breakdown on this debate (it's not what I used when voting, I ended up scanning more). But here is the breakdown it provided...
== Debate Title ==
'''For children, time spent in school in most cases should be limited to 2 hours a day'''
== Participants ==
* '''Pro''': TheGreatSunGod
* '''Con''': TheRizzler
== Round-by-Round Breakdown ==
=== Argument Tree ===
==== Arguments Initiated by Pro (TheGreatSunGod) ====
* '''Contention''' (➕): '''School causes chronic sleep deprivation in children.'''<br>{{Q|Chronic sleep deprivation is rampant among children. The cause is primarily the demands of school.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 1}}
:* '''Rebuttal''' (➖): '''Sleep deprivation is not necessarily due to school; students can still sleep 8 hours.'''<br>{{Q|They only need 8 hours of sleep, so if they sleep from 9pm-5am, it will not result in chronic sleep deprivation.|TheRizzler, Round 2}}
::* '''Defense''' (➕): '''8 hours is insufficient for children.'''<br>{{Q|The average amount of sleep required for a 13-year-old is 9.25 hours.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 2}}
:::* '''Rebuttal''' (➖): '''Most students do get enough sleep.'''<br>''NO DIRECT QUOTE IDENTIFIED''
::::* '''Defense''' (➕): '''Most of these studies are flawed or untrue.'''<br>''NO DIRECT QUOTE IDENTIFIED''
* '''Contention''' (➕): '''Children retain very little from long school days.'''<br>{{Q|A 2015 study of high school students found that students only retained 20% of what they were taught.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 1}}
:* '''Rebuttal''' (➖): '''Some students can retain a lot with good methods.'''<br>{{Q|The effectiveness of memory is up to the student and the techniques they use.|TheRizzler, Round 2}}
::* '''Defense''' (➕): '''Children don't all have access to ideal study environments.'''<br>{{Q|That's not an excuse. The average student doesn't retain much; you can't expect perfection.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 2}}
* '''Contention''' (➕): '''Reduced school time promotes better mental health.'''<br>{{Q|Shorter school time could lead to students being more relaxed and less depressed.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 1}}
:* '''Rebuttal''' (➖): '''School time is necessary structure.'''<br>{{Q|Structure and discipline are necessary, especially for kids who can't get it at home.|TheRizzler, Round 2}}
::* '''Defense''' (➕): '''Structure doesn’t have to come from school.'''<br>{{Q|You can give children structure in other ways, such as planned activities.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 2}}
* '''Contention''' (➕): '''Bullying and peer pressure are amplified in long school days.'''<br>{{Q|If kids only go to school for 2 hours, there's less time to be bullied.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 1}}
:* '''Rebuttal''' (➖): '''Bullying occurs regardless of hours.'''<br>{{Q|If they get bullied, it will happen regardless of how long they're there.|TheRizzler, Round 2}}
::* '''Defense''' (➕): '''Less time reduces exposure.'''<br>{{Q|Less time around bullies means fewer opportunities to be bullied.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 2}}
* '''Contention''' (➕): '''Children would be happier if their time was better respected.'''<br>{{Q|Respecting children’s time is respecting them as people.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 1}}
:* '''Rebuttal''' (➖): '''Children lack maturity to make such decisions.'''<br>{{Q|You're arguing that we should let children decide what's best for them.|TheRizzler, Round 2}}
::* '''Defense''' (➕): '''Autonomy helps development.'''<br>{{Q|Giving children some choice and freedom helps them grow.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 2}}
==== Arguments Initiated by Con (TheRizzler) ====
* '''Contention''' (➖): '''A 2-hour school day is insufficient to teach all necessary subjects.'''<br>{{Q|With only 2 hours of school, you would not be able to cover reading, math, history, science, etc.|TheRizzler, Round 1}}
:* '''Rebuttal''' (➕): '''Learning can happen outside school.'''<br>{{Q|You don’t need 8 hours of school to learn math.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 2}}
::* '''Defense''' (➖): '''Many students won’t learn outside school.'''<br>{{Q|You say they could do it at home, but many wouldn’t.|TheRizzler, Round 2}}
:::* '''Rebuttal''' (➕): '''Parents and technology can support at-home learning.'''<br>{{Q|If you have involved parents or even just good software, students can thrive.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 2}}
::::* '''Defense''' (➖): '''Not all families have access to those resources.'''<br>{{Q|This assumes privilege. Many students don’t have that kind of support.|TheRizzler, Round 2}}
* '''Contention''' (➖): '''The 2-hour proposal lacks practicality.'''<br>{{Q|This would be an unworkable shift in how education is done.|TheRizzler, Round 1}}
:* '''Rebuttal''' (➕): '''Other countries succeed with short hours.'''<br>{{Q|Finland has shorter school hours and still ranks high in education.|TheGreatSunGod, Round 1}}
::* '''Defense''' (➖): '''Cultural and structural differences make comparisons invalid.'''<br>{{Q|Finland has a different society, economy, and values. It’s not an easy comparison.|TheRizzler, Round 2}}
== Result ==
The voting period is still open, and the result is currently tied. This page presents a tiered breakdown of the full debate to aid readers and potential voters in assessing the strength of the arguments on both sides.
=== Evaluation Summary ===
* '''Logical Clarity''': Slight edge to '''Con''' for pragmatic framing and consistent rebuttals.
* '''Use of Evidence''': Relatively even; '''Pro''' offers some studies, while '''Con''' uses common-sense rebuttals.
* '''Debate Structure''': '''Con''' consistently responds to and frames issues across rounds.
* '''Rhetorical Framing''': '''Pro''' appeals to reform and autonomy; '''Con''' focuses on feasibility and equity.
'''Recommended Vote''':
* Vote '''Pro''' if you prioritize idealism, student-centered reform, or philosophical values.
* Vote '''Con''' if you value pragmatic feasibility, systemic equity, and rebuttal discipline.
Under traditional criteria (burden of proof, refutation, impact): '''Con''' holds a slight edge overall.
[[Category:Debates]]
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: bronskibeat // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 6 t o 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
**************************************************
bronskibeat
04.23.2025 10:17AM
Reason:
This was an interesting debate, and I enjoyed reading what both parties had to offer. Con has a unique style that can be difficult to follow at times, but their core arguments were clearly expressed. Con's arguments could have also used more sourcing. Ultimately, Con's arguments were a bit all over the place, and could stand against further scrutiny.
Pro offered very thorough, well-sourced, and strong arguments. Rebutted Con's arguments successfully point by point while offering consistent citations.
Someone remind me at the end, and I’ll make a wiki page in this, in large part to put the arguments into proper order.
Oh and Lancealot, not required by any means, but to make things easier on readers, the link to pro’s R1 is https://www.debateart.com/debates/6075/comments/63600
Fair point. It reminds me of common definitions of what rights should be (effectively limited just by when their abuse infringes upon others).
Aside from bots, there are other things that require intervention. A married couple with a nude profile picture for example (yes, this happened).
In case it hasn’t been said, they’re there to limit the number of unqualified white men given jobs over better qualified diverse people.
There are also incentives, such as veterans get discriminated against so the government gives incentives to hire them.
A rare recovery in this topic!
As a moderator, I find it is often needed (just consider the spam bots) even if it would be better if people were better and thus did not need to be censored.
This will be an easy victory for someone
Tough topic. Good to see both sides doing a good job.
He's the only one most people have heard of, so there might not be a challenger. If not, try changing the resolution to world leader (to which I'd say he needs to be in the top five).
https://debate.miraheze.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
I wrote it because I’ve seen it happen to too many times. Multiple of the examples were not hypothetical, but rather straight from things I’ve seen in the last year. There’s a Reptilian Heuristic page which has another personal account of that fallacy.
Reminds me of this fallacy:
https://debate.miraheze.org/wiki/Retro_Hoc_Propter_Ex_Futuro
That said, it’s a fun hypothetical
I created a writeup on this debate:
https://debate.miraheze.org/wiki/Personhood_Begins_at_Conception
I did a writeup on this debate (heavily AI assisted, so apologies for any errors):
https://debate.miraheze.org/wiki/THB_in_the_Efficacy_of_Gender_Affirming_Care
A statement like that should probably be qualified in the description. Like ranked within the bottom five.
*nor
Nice opening argument. IMO you’ve reached the point that until counter biblical evidence is provided, you can just point to your existing case.
The following vote has been reported:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/5926-one-should-believe-in-and-practice-the-direct-inverse-of-everything-christians-believe-in-and-practice?open_tab=votes&votes_page=1&vote_number=1
It has supporting information at:
#10 https://www.debateart.com/debates/5926/comments/62827
#18 https://www.debateart.com/debates/5926/comments/62879
In general, votes need not be perfect. Heck in my own vote I mislabeled pro as con at one point (context was still obvious IMO, but still a flaw).
If you want to formally report any vote, click the three dots next to the vote number to open the menu with report being probably the only option. As I voted on this debate, I'd prefer it if whiteflame reviewed any vote (you can also tag him and state that you are reporting whatever vote).
Speaking of which, my vote has been reported, so I need to message him or tag him in a comment (he checks the report log sometimes, but should my vote be removed I'd like to have the time to reread the debate and revote).
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Americandebater24 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 7 to pro.
>Reason for Decision: Full forfeit on Cons part.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote has been removed to enable them to revote at their discretion.
**************************************************
FYI, con had technical difficulties and posted his rounds in the comment section.
I did a little experiment using this debate:
https://debate.miraheze.org/wiki/Direct_Inversion_of_Christianity_(Tiered)
This was created with ChatGPT, with only minimal input from me (mostly formatting, and the ever annoying need to tell it that quotes must be direct quotes rather than paraphrases).
As someone who read the debate, it's cool to see the differences in where such a tool focuses.
I think I was pretty clear, but a couple pieces were a little implicit, so…
1. I’m one of the most active voters.
2. I consider the definitions in the description to be a type of Scarecrow Argument (but there are other fallacies it could soundly be called), rather than valid definitions from any authority.
3. Because the description is so ingenuine, I will not dogmatically obey it in my vote.
You will still likely win. However, if your argument consists of pointing to the fallacies you put into the description instead of offering sound reasoning, your case will be crippled by it.
Another bump a day or two ago would have been nice. Just saw this now, and there's not nearly enough time to properly review and vote on it.
As a voter, I will not be obeying the Scarecrow Arguments (aka strawman) in the description.
I'm going to get a jump start on this debate (while both have the opportunity to incorporate any feedback if they so desire).
Right off the start, that description should really give a scope statement. Like everything Christians believe and practice, is both broad and self contradictory due to the many branches of Christianity and the far wider number of Christians themselves (I don't yet know if either raises the point that Christian does not equal Christianity as a whole or the bible). Also qualifier word "direct" in the title significantly raises BoP (without it there'd be a wider range that would meet the BoP)
R1: Pro
I assume pro meets their basic BoP unless challenged.
Theism VS Atheism:
Pro is actually wrong to call this an Ad Hominem. It is however an obvious Scarecrow Argument, which risks being a Phantom Argument.
https://debate.miraheze.org/wiki/Scarecrow_Argument
Appeal to authority VS genuine compassion:
Bad start, but then "The Bible supports slavery, genocide, burning "witches" at the stake, stoning faggots etc. " is a solid point, as much as a source would have been fantastic to back up that the bible does those things which it doesn't really do (I have an open mind, and can consider this point won if unchallenged or unsuccessfully challenged; but I'll still call out errors).
Hating pleasure VS hedonism:
"Suffering is treated as a virtue while pleasure is treated as evil in Christianity" if unchallenged, this is a great argument; and actually one you could have backed up with biblical sources.
Continuing on feels like reading a Gish Gallop; it reduces the impact of the individual points, as it makes me more inclined to think of them as a single contention rather than a nuanced set of them.
...
R1 con:
Con hits hard and keeps nailing in from "Pro characterizes that religion as a single entity when, in fact, Christianity has some 200 separate denominations just in the U.S."
He even brings up an interesting point that it would be impossible to do the opposite of such a wide set of beliefs.
“do unto others…” while using it to compare Christianity to another religion, raises the point of something which people intuitively should not reject (I'd have liked to see that part of it more in focus). He does come back to this a little later adding "being humble, forgiving, and generous" as values in Christianity one ought to not do the opposite of.
Oh a call for sources, great to see that! Pro may actually deliver, but it creates a great falsifiability moment.
...
R2 pro:
"different denominations share core beliefs and values. " a mild moving of the goalposts, but it fits the themes of the debate enough to have validity.
The return to the Gish Gallop is actually painful... Maybe were it presented here as a numbered list it'd be less bad, but the way it's offered it's be better to just say "extend all arguments from my previous round," and thematically explain why they still hold weight (instead of individually).
I did not initially catch it due to the potty mouth, but "The opposite of Christianity is veganism" is a pretty good point due to the inclusion of "heart disease."
"This isn't even relevant since I'm not a Muslim" leaves the core do unto others bit unchallenged... Ah, God doesn't obey it in the bible isn't the worst point (but kinda misses the point of if those words inspire good actions from Christians or not)
Oh damn, I did not expect to see any sources from pro. Great job! Cherry picked evidence in all, but I'll count it (without these sources would have surely gone to con, but now I'll leave them in the tied range).
Basically this site works differently than just about all of the others. Two people go head to head in each debate. Others I've seen are more like a list of points made by every random person, without any conclusion.
If it can’t be resolved, it would be good conduct to for you to post a link to his comments post in your next round. The proper link is: https://www.debateart.com/debates/5926/comments/62809
This is of course not required. You may argue however you’d like. Some voters will probably discount it for being posted wrong; but I believe in the spirit of fairness.
>Reported Vote: MAV99 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 7 to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Quite obviously this is a rare example of a true vote bomb. Please review the voting standards before casting future votes
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
**************************************************
This was pretty clearly a win for Pro.
Pro very effectively demonstrated in R1, using Scripture and reasoning to show a distinction in persons. Especially with his main body. Con then brings in other references that seem to point out a univocality in God which Pro in R2 effectively answered with:
"Although the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share one divine nature, they remain truly distinct Persons." Using the word "nature" here pretty much sealed the debate as it is a term of universality meaning it is said of many things and also "person" which is a term of particularity. That is in accordance with basic rules of logic and definitions.
While Con does seem to have a decent grasp of scripture, it seems to me he is confusing "Holy Spirit" with "holy and spiritual". Those two phrases refer to different things. Also his whole:
"So you read about the spirit interceding and your understanding is .....well there has to be two because that's the only way it "makes sense" to me." is rather undermining Con since he is trying to do the same thing. It would be unreasonable to simply read the words at face value and leave it at that without using our God-given reason to delve into it.