Having only skimmed things, I'll say that I am guessing con would have come ahead on arguments. While I don't think his Kritik of elder voters opposing it was valid (accidental Kritiks, are still Kritiks), when summarizing the cost of welfare he listed a couple different numbers, and pro went with the highest possible estimate which included scrapping the VA (as a veteran, I feel a bit like one of those aforementioned senior citizens on this)... Of course if UBI were implemented in such a way as to allow people to choose which set of benefits to receive, the costs of administering such things would not go away, so the cut costs would actually be greater reduced.
Maybe other points would have put pro ahead. I have not read the whole debate.
In general when doing value estimates, I do suggest aiming the calculations conservatively. Buying a lottery ticket for $5 you could win a million dollars, the math almost certainly says your expected return per ticket is around $2.5; worse you'll probably get nothing, merely if you play a few thousand times you'll average that $2.5 rate of return.
By the way, I suggest watching The Expanse. It does a good job in showing a few hypothetical systems like global UBI.
IMO BoP on this debate (any any like it) would not quite be an absolute all or none (unless such specific qualifier statements were included in the resolution), but more of an overwhelming majority/minority. For any large populations, there will always be a few outliers. As an intuitive example, on a debate 'Nazi's Are Bad People,' citing Oskar Schindler would not prove the Nazi's are not bad.
Anyway, thank you again for taking the time to vote. My opinion on such matters is of course just one opinion, which does not invalidate others.
You've previously confirmed that you pull vile ad hominem attacks against anyone who votes in favor of the other debater, based on that whom they voted for instead of on the quality of the vote (https://www.debateart.com/debates/1682/andrew-yang-should-be-elected-president-for-2020). In light of this, I am not going to indulge your petulant antics, which include such accusations as anyone who doesn't vote for you must be a member of the KKK.
As an example of the legibility issue, consider my review of the debate in comments #28 and #29. Had con written it, it would probably look like this:
I’m a believer in syllogisms, but the support for this one was lacking (at least initially).
2. Elizabeth Warren
...It says many unkind things about how bigoted he is, but it doesn’t prove that it’s racially motivated bigotry.
3. Pretty Korean Lady
...Pro of course uses the logical connection to the local place to which he suggested she would be a useful negotiator to bridge the gap into it being more about perceived culture than purely genetic heritage.
4. go back to your countries
etc.
I haven't a clue what possible benefit he believes comes from doing it that way.
Given the existing RFDs not looking at the arguments, I am putting some extra work in to give con a fair shot at at least tying the debate...
---RFD---
Interpreting the resolution:
The setup defines two pathsAs pro cannot prove a negative, the setup defines two paths for con to attain victory: Either (1) prove racially based prejudice against individuals, or (2) belief in superiority/inferiority.
1. What would deem someone a racist?
I’m a believer in syllogisms, but the support for this one was lacking (at least initially).
2. Elizabeth Warren
Con proves Trump called her a name, and shows the racial connection. Pro defends that Trump does not believe Warren to be native, and is just being an asshole. This doesn’t show that he believes Native Americans are inferior, or that he is prejudiced against Warren for her race. It says many unkind things about how bigoted he is, but it doesn’t prove that it’s racially motivated bigotry.
3. Pretty Korean Lady
I think where con was going with this is that race doesn’t exist, a point he previously said pro said to talk against... So Trump called someone Korean and pretty, which doesn’t say anything bad about anyone who isn’t Korean. The news story was very non-specific to this incident, so this feels like a dead end even before pro’s responses. Pro of course uses the logical connection to the local place to which he suggested she would be a useful negotiator to bridge the gap into it being more about perceived culture than purely genetic heritage.
4. go back to your countries
Finally, something which could go somewhere toward the resolution.
This looks like pretty clear racism, ‘Speak English or Die’ type rhetoric. Pro amazingly defends that, showing that Omar weaponizes racist accusations even at inanimate objects and the USA in general. In this context, Trump talking back to her could be called cultural elitism, but thinking she’s inferior due to her skin color as opposed to where she’s from was not clearly shown.
It does of course remain highly suspect. With this con has reached a minimal BoP to be taken seriously, but it does not conclusively win the debate by itself given pro’s excellent defense. Someone can say someone eerily similar to what a member of the KKK might say, but not be a member nor supporter of the KKK. Trump for example was not shown to be in favor of forced deportations of any US citizens (which to point out the difference is not to defend the KKK as con claims).
5. Jewish Voters
This point had probably the least work put into it, when it would be worthy of an expansion into a stand-alone debate.
So getting to the heart of it... Pro shows some slightly off beliefs about ethnicities (no, I don’t buy his source as a comprehensive list proving there’s only about five ethnicities, even while it used umbrella terms which imply such), but that doesn’t harm his point that to be Jewish is more of a cultural (or religious as he directly states) thing than a racial one.
A problem does of course arise with how ambiguous the term Jew can be, as it’s religious, cultural, sometimes racial, etc. For it to be clear cut racism, it needs to be shown that it was contextually referring both to race, and then that the race is better or worse than other races for being that race; of which I did not spot any real attempt. This section basically turned into Red Herrings which were explored as if diving down a rabbit hole.
Arguments:
See above review of key points. BoP was on con to prove Donald Trump is racist, which he failed to do in light of pro’s alternative explanations for why any of these things might not be based on belief in orange (or whatever race's) superiority.
Going back to pro’s opening, I would say the problem is that while he manages to show echoes of racist talking points, he doesn’t show a racist intent or motivation. Probably racist, and certainly disliked, does not bridge the gap into racist.
Note: I dislike Trump. On race, he has a history of demanding special treatment due to his Native American blood (of which he claims to have more of than whole tribes). He’s very bigoted, and scary if his words are taken literally. However, that’s my outside the debate opinion and research. Victory is for what is presented inside the debate.
Conduct:
Con made a rule violation. Comparatively, pro made some jokes about people fleeing to Canada and showed lack of knowledge on racial terms, but neither distracted from the debate. I don’t see any issue with pro responding to con’s italic text which con imaged he might write.
S&G:
The formatting could have been better. Pro did some really weird formatting to cluster responses to ideas away from each other and to the next thing he was going to later respond to, which harms legibility, but technically his spelling and grammar were fine.
---RFD---
In short, pro showed that the young earth model left the flood an impossibility with our anthropological record.
Interpreting the resolution:
This is a pretty specific setup... “this flood was less than 4500 years ago and contained 2 of each "kind" of animal, including dinosaurs.”
This puts a strong BoP on pro, that something simply did not happen. So for con to beat him, it just needs to rise to the level of probable.
Formulations (I can upload this somewhere if you'd like):
These are the calculations I made for the time and population estimates, which determine the feasibility or infeasibility within the changing years given within the debate.
Doubling rate sum population Doubling rate sum population
BCE years ago after flood /150 8^ /mile /feet /40 8^ /mile /feet
Pro's original 2406 4425 29.5 4.37678E+26 2.22284E+18 4.20993E+14
Con's original 2472 4491 29.94 1.09273E+27 5.54969E+18 1.05108E+15
Pyramids 1875 3894 597 3.98 3929.145833 1.9955E-05 3.77936E-09 14.925 3.01036E+13 152887.6269 28.95598995
Revised pyramids after founding 390,100 miles in Egypt
Egypt founded 2109 4128
first pyramid 1875 3894 234 1.56 25.63423608 6.5712E-05 1.24454E-08 5.85 191,901 0.491926789 9.3168E-05
1. History
A. Year
Got to say, while I’m normally a numbers guy, the description calls for less than 4500 years ago. If it’s BCE 2472 or BCE 2406 doesn’t matter in the greater context. Round to 4500 instead of 4491 years, and no one is going to nitpick.
B. Population rebound
Pro’s path here was somewhat indirect. The exponential doubling would have 5.55x10^18 people per every mile, or 1.05x10^15 for every foot of space on the earth’s surface (including water). This isn’t how population growth works...
Pro’s real point was just that we have recorded history which called for more people than are available in early years if we believe the flood happened.
C. The Pyramids
So on this one, I am skipping ahead to the refined time estimate con insisted upon, and pro agreed to. The population available across the whole planet would be 3929 (not a mere 48, which was his claim, but I’m redoing the math with con’s update)... Still, not enough to build those monstrosities, or even have a thriving slave cast in one corner of the world.
Con counters that Egypt started in BCE 2109, with a fresh group of only 8. Which 234 years later when they build the first pyramid, had a whole 25 people to do it. However, since this doesn’t give the desired answer, we apparently must double the doubling rate until it does. The population of the earth apparently now doubles every 40 years (in fairness, that site did go on to say 40)... So by this revision, Egypt had 5.85 exponential doublings, for a population of 191,901 when they build the first pyramid. ... Since con’s Harvard source insists it wasn’t slave labor, they were not willing to work themselves to death.
I am going to ignore the carbon dating issues on this.
This area casts some doubt on the flood fitting within the required timeline, but I give con credit for proving that this alone leaves the existence of the first pyramid within the realm of possibly without contradicting the flood.
D. Other Buildings
A very good building upon the previous contention, to show not only were generally greater populations needed to build these things than would be available, but that greater populations needed to exist all over. Further they apparently were all hired by Egypt for the pyramids rather than being elsewhere growing their populations...
One such work was apparently made with less than 400 people, the Tower of Babel, and the amazing crane technology from it was then used on the Pyramids... I am not seeing any source with any information to prove this thing existed, or even any records of ancient Egyptian cranes which were taken from it after it was completed to use on the pyramids.
Regarding the dating estimates, lines like “This discovery would have come as no surprise if the Bible had been used to establish these dates” lower the credibility of disputing anything. You can’t assume things don’t exist because they don’t fit into your worldview, or that they do exist despite lack of evidence when needed to justify your worldview.
2. The Ice Age
More of a support point than anything else, summarized as “It seems like whoever was left alive had far more stuff to worry about than building pyramids and emigrating to the Americas.”
On this one con did not wait a couple rounds to respond but did a bizarrely disjointed reply trying to prove it happened after the flood, which pro already agreed. It was like con could not comprehend lack of disagreement, so launched into a counter speech he prepared for someone else.
3. Genetics
Got to say it, pro could have made his case here a lot stronger with a more direct pointing to the genetic diversity seen in humans today... which at an obvious superficial level is to say skin colors.
This gets into damage done 100 generations ago, which we still see today, but even by con’s 40 year generational doubling rate, the entire population of the earth is only just about at its 15th, if we believe in the flood.
On this one con wanted to talk about the young earth independent of the flood, basically dropping the points relevant to his case. This debate is about a global flood 4500 years ago; even if the earth were only 10,000 years old, this would not prove the actual event this debate is about.
This point was well concluded with: “If all of us had a huge bottleneck like the one in the flood, it would have wiped out all genetic diversity.” Which is against con’s unfounded belief in perfect genetics.
4. Young Earth
This debate is about one event. I mean dinosaurs are cool, but even if we assume the world only 10,000 years, that would not suggest a flood happened 4500 years ago. This leaves all the complaints about soft tissue and such irrelevant to the resolution (which is negated if the evidence were to suggest the flood, but it having occurred any time over 10,000 years ago).
5. Rapid Erosion
Support point for the young earth. Some things happened rapidly. I would probably care more for this area if it didn’t keep relying on the same website with a singular goal. Could have been improved with the respectability of a .gov or .edu site for support.
6. Feasibility of the Biblical account
Back to something interesting... Okay this seems to be a defense point, to a line of attack with did not occur. This is a common problem with too much prep work, as copy/pasted what you pre-wrote expecting those lines of argument, do not always line up with what actually did occur.
A. No one says Noah was restricted to building it with his own two hands, no tools, and no help. ... Correction, pro does say that, and points out that it took Noah 120 years to build it... I have a hard time taking bits like this seriously, given that humans don’t live that long.
B. 1400 to 7000 kinds of animals; which seems doubtful, but good to have a minimal target... I think con was building a case that even less were needed because they could evolve after leaving the ark.
C. It lasted a year. Ok.
7. space requirements
My eyes are glazing over on this one. I’ll just trust that it was well done and showed the feasibility to this angle of the case.
8. Water
Yes, a global flood is a global flood. Not trying to Kritik it into saying it was a Flood which only happened in Noah’s mind (or only his yard... whatever), doesn’t need to be stated or expanded upon.
Arguments:
See above review of key points. I did lose patience at a certain point (as can be seen above with less and less being written on the points), but I am still voting because the points I analyzed at full depth are deterministic to the outcome. You could prove dinosaurs are flourishing today, and it would not change it. You could prove humans live 1000 years on average, and it would not change it. If we assume the arc is entirely feasible, that doesn’t override the lack of time afterward for the limited survivors to build all those ancient wonders; nor does it allow the variety of genetic problems seen on the planet today with origins older than the flood but somehow not affecting every survivor.
Side note: God is not the great deceiver; he does not plant evidence for our eyes and then demand we ignore it to have faith that his creations are lies he planted to make us doubt him... The FSM does that, but not God.
I mentioned this before in the comment section, but a debate like this might be better handled as a campaign of debates (like 5 or more different debates to the theme, each centered on a point... The water requirements of the arc being feasible as an example, or even just how many animals should be assumed to have been on it, if the 8 people or whatever could handle the workload as an other...).
Sources:
Books are a lovely thing, but as they are not readily verifiable, they should never be used for vital claims such as how Egypt is a young country. I doubt either of you read all those books this debate, so please just direct people to the websites which then listed them.
The genetics are the area which is motivating me here. The perfect genetics of the Ashkenazi Jewish population, suffering from a genetic bottleneck not seen in most other populations, not only ruined a good portion of cons case, but was left uncontested. I’m a human being, I care about my fellow man more so than a Strawmanning of cheetahs.
In one way I'm glad pro forfeited; otherwise I suspect I would be having to remove votes which are based on the conclusion of the case, rather than debate content.
Altered Carbon is largely an exploration of the idea of immortality, and even if we were all immortal through some means, how the upper class would be so much more immortal than everyone else.
Lexx had a brilliant musical episode, which tackles the downsides to immortality on the mental state. Not required viewing, but very entertaining: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n7iIYhjiSQ
The exploitable hole I see right now, is someone could try to argue that children born in the third world will keep the life expectancy low. Which I don't think is the point of this debate, I am guessing you wish to argue that medical advances will enable someone alive today (let's say a young adult, 21 years old, and insanely wealthy) to live past 200 years. Not every 21 year old, and of course excluding violent ends...
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: SupaDudz, armoredcat, bmdrocks21, sigmaphil, SirAnonymous, Trent0405 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:7; All points to Con.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Your votes have been deleted at the specific and repeated request of con (the person you voted for). While I am sorry for doing this, given that there was no malice from any of you, just an honest mistake made by the majority of people looking at this debate; but in re-review pro did indeed say something in R2, which makes this not an actual full forfeiture.
From the CoC: "A full-forfeit debate is defined as a debate that has no argument presented by one side following the opening round, resulting in all subsequent rounds being forfeited. When this is the case, these debates are considered full-forfeit debates and are not moderated unless a voter votes for the forfeiting side."
And as a general reminder for lesser forfeitures: People forfeit by degrees. Any unexcused forfeited rounds merits a conduct loss. However, for less than a 50% forfeiture, arguments must still be voted on or justified as a tie. ... Which is to say, conduct only awards are fine on debates like this, without going into any analysis.
**************************************************
SupaDudz
4 hours ago
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✗ ✗ ✔ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✗ ✔ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Better conduct ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Reason:
Boo socialism
armoredcat
6 hours ago
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✗ ✗ ✔ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✗ ✔ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Better conduct ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Reason:
Pro argued for something other than his resolution. Also eph eph
bmdrocks21
7 hours ago
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✗ ✗ ✔ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✗ ✔ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Better conduct ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Reason:
ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff
sigmaphil
8 hours ago
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✗ ✗ ✔ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✗ ✔ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Better conduct ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Reason:
Full Forfeit...
SirAnonymous
1 day ago
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✗ ✗ ✔ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✗ ✔ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Better conduct ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Reason:
FF and failure to meet BOP.
Trent0405
1 day ago
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✗ ✗ ✔ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✗ ✔ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Better conduct ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Reason:
Full Forfeit.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Lazarous // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3:3; 3 points to Pro, and 3 points to Con.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action: This is a tied vote (via wholly canceling itself out) which does indeed comment on the debate (and does so well, giving feedback to both sides). For more on tied votes: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1718/moderation-and-tied-votes
**************************************************
---RFD (1 of 2)---
Interpreting the resolution:
This nearly left arguments a tie, without a standard for what would be common on these scales, I am having a tough time weighting what would be enough to be considered common or uncommon.
1. Drake
The Drake Equation is a fun part of this debate, which alternates between lending support for pro and con. N=1 was a great point against relying on this.
2. Syllogism
Credit for a well-played syllogism under the likely uncommon heading. Certainly not common enough to be detectable. Pro did well trying to mitigate this, but it is a strong piece against his case.
3. Fermi Paradox
Tied to the syllogism, but pro’s replies are standout enough to merit partly separate consideration. Things like different communication technologies than us, or intelligent without those technologies. Con of course counters with a play on numbers, one that I have no problem with, it’s fairly straight forward; but pro uses the speed of light and the limited time we’ve been broadcasting as a solid defense (even if it was vulnerable to a flip of tying things back to how that does not imply common, such did not occur).
4. Extinction
I think con could have easily won the debate here had he supported our own survival being a fluke, as the basis for everything else is human-centric. However, this was not done. Moreover, the absence of sources left this a bit lackluster, an assertion not tied to the available evidence.
---RFD (2 of 2)---
Arguments:
See above review of key points. This is very close to being a tie to me. Had the resolution contained less qualifiers, it might have even gone against pro. As is, I basically have to weight us having not noticed anything in our quiet corner, against the hypothetical likelihood of activity elsewhere (or even nearby using different communication technologies). Basically, pro better supported his end of the hypothetical.
Sources:
I do view these as being within the tied range. While pro certainly had more, con made good use of those too, but did not outright steal them to his side.
Conduct:
I am not overly concerned with the minor format slip-up (as much as I’ve encouraged people to vote against me on conduct when I’ve done likewise), however the forfeiture is a clear matter. This bites twice, as having seen con’s performance I suspect he would have bridged the gap to at least a tie with just a concluding statement to tie things back together.
As a fellow voter who believes in voting the evidence instead of bias, I applaud your vote integrity.
(in case anyone is curious, for the longest time my SOP was to not give points to either side on abortion debates, as I suspected I would have been an unfair judge...)
I thought I knew how I was voting, but in writing the vote I saw a point which I had not giving enough consideration... If nothing else, I'll get a conduct only vote in for the forfeit (the rule slip is also noted).
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: SirAnonymous // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 1:2; 1 point to Pro, and 2 points to Con.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action: Basically you can't vote sources just for /has sources/ you need to name one and what it did for the debate. You can revote at any time with that amended to your current vote.
To award sources points, the voter must:
(1) explain how the debaters' sources impacted the debate,
(2) directly assess the strength/utility of at least one source in particular cited in the debate, and
(3) explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall were notably superior to the other's.
**************************************************
SirAnonymous
17 days ago
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✗ ✔ ✗ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✗ ✔ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✔ ✗ 1 point
Better conduct ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Reason:
Con forfeited a round, so Pro gets conduct.
Con used sources and Pro didn't, so Con wins sources.
Judging by the debate description, the BoP seems to be shared, so I will judge the arguments accordingly.
Both participants argued that their own philosophies would lead to personal happiness and the benefit of others. Pro argued that, by definition, hedonism is the pursuit of happiness, so it inevitably leads to happiness. Furthermore, most people are not pleased by harming others, so in their search for pleasure, they will not harm others. Contrarily, Con argued that HBOY (Congrats to the participants for coining the name of this interesting philosophy) would by definition help yourself and others. Con pointed out that hedonism has the problem that some people are pleased by hurting others, thus giving hedonism an inescapable moral problem. As Pro pointed out, however, HBOY has the exact same problem if someone believes that pain helps other. Thus, both philosophies are weakened by this same problem.
Pro also attempted to show a contradiction in HBOY because it is impossible to always help yourself and others. But as Con pointed out, HBOY only says to "try" to help others. If helping yourself and others is not always possible, there is no contradiction because only trying is required.
Overall, the moral problems both philosophies face cancel each other out, so arguments are a tie.
I have not forgotten this debate, I've just had a couple unexpectedly very long days...
One immediate bit of feedback I'll give, is that a debate like this might be better served separated into a series of smaller debates for the directly connected sub-topics.
I haven't had coffee yet, but your vote looks like it is short on a justification for sources. You may want to amend that on.
To award sources points, the voter must:
(1) explain how the debaters' sources impacted the debate,
(2) directly assess the strength/utility of at least one source in particular cited in the debate, and
(3) explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall were notably superior to the other's.
Never a good sign for a case when one side does exactly what the other said they'd do.
R2: Pro says something along the lines of “Well it’s not good evidence so it’s not evidence.”
Forfeit:
Around here we would call that a waived round. A truly forfeited round is misconduct to the degree that it results in a default negative point allocation.
BoP:
Had con tried to say BoP is on wholly pro, I would side against him. Shared BoP is what we end up calling this. But yes, pro cannot prove a negative, so his BoP is to disprove anything offered as not being evidence.
Definitions:
These make sense, and intuitively set a good scope limit (what Trump did 30 years ago, has nothing to do with any conduct in the presidency, so is not evidence related to it).
Contentions:
I'll withhold reviewing these until pro has responded to them. This breakdown was just of the preamble, and basically to say it's a good setup.
Before I try to read this, would one (or both) of you clarify the resolution? Like is pro arguing they exist and con that they don't, or is pro arguing morally in favor of said demons and con arguing morally against them...
I strongly suggest using Choose Winner in future for this type of "troll debate."
And yes, even as a member of the moderation team I still voice my disagreement with that term being applied to all non-moderated debates.
Sorry I did not get around to voting on this.
Having only skimmed things, I'll say that I am guessing con would have come ahead on arguments. While I don't think his Kritik of elder voters opposing it was valid (accidental Kritiks, are still Kritiks), when summarizing the cost of welfare he listed a couple different numbers, and pro went with the highest possible estimate which included scrapping the VA (as a veteran, I feel a bit like one of those aforementioned senior citizens on this)... Of course if UBI were implemented in such a way as to allow people to choose which set of benefits to receive, the costs of administering such things would not go away, so the cut costs would actually be greater reduced.
Maybe other points would have put pro ahead. I have not read the whole debate.
In general when doing value estimates, I do suggest aiming the calculations conservatively. Buying a lottery ticket for $5 you could win a million dollars, the math almost certainly says your expected return per ticket is around $2.5; worse you'll probably get nothing, merely if you play a few thousand times you'll average that $2.5 rate of return.
By the way, I suggest watching The Expanse. It does a good job in showing a few hypothetical systems like global UBI.
Now that voting is over...
IMO BoP on this debate (any any like it) would not quite be an absolute all or none (unless such specific qualifier statements were included in the resolution), but more of an overwhelming majority/minority. For any large populations, there will always be a few outliers. As an intuitive example, on a debate 'Nazi's Are Bad People,' citing Oskar Schindler would not prove the Nazi's are not bad.
Anyway, thank you again for taking the time to vote. My opinion on such matters is of course just one opinion, which does not invalidate others.
Thank you for the debate.
I minimize commentary during the voting window, but now that it's over I'm happy to discuss anything you would like.
/The government better keep it's damned paws off my social security!/
Sorry, reading some of the debate and that paraphrased common idiotic quote came to mind.
You've previously confirmed that you pull vile ad hominem attacks against anyone who votes in favor of the other debater, based on that whom they voted for instead of on the quality of the vote (https://www.debateart.com/debates/1682/andrew-yang-should-be-elected-president-for-2020). In light of this, I am not going to indulge your petulant antics, which include such accusations as anyone who doesn't vote for you must be a member of the KKK.
Nice tightening of the belt as the debate progresses!
Now I've got "A brick could fall and break your skull..." from the Lexx musical episode going through my head.
As an example of the legibility issue, consider my review of the debate in comments #28 and #29. Had con written it, it would probably look like this:
I’m a believer in syllogisms, but the support for this one was lacking (at least initially).
2. Elizabeth Warren
...It says many unkind things about how bigoted he is, but it doesn’t prove that it’s racially motivated bigotry.
3. Pretty Korean Lady
...Pro of course uses the logical connection to the local place to which he suggested she would be a useful negotiator to bridge the gap into it being more about perceived culture than purely genetic heritage.
4. go back to your countries
etc.
I haven't a clue what possible benefit he believes comes from doing it that way.
Given the existing RFDs not looking at the arguments, I am putting some extra work in to give con a fair shot at at least tying the debate...
---RFD---
Interpreting the resolution:
The setup defines two pathsAs pro cannot prove a negative, the setup defines two paths for con to attain victory: Either (1) prove racially based prejudice against individuals, or (2) belief in superiority/inferiority.
1. What would deem someone a racist?
I’m a believer in syllogisms, but the support for this one was lacking (at least initially).
2. Elizabeth Warren
Con proves Trump called her a name, and shows the racial connection. Pro defends that Trump does not believe Warren to be native, and is just being an asshole. This doesn’t show that he believes Native Americans are inferior, or that he is prejudiced against Warren for her race. It says many unkind things about how bigoted he is, but it doesn’t prove that it’s racially motivated bigotry.
3. Pretty Korean Lady
I think where con was going with this is that race doesn’t exist, a point he previously said pro said to talk against... So Trump called someone Korean and pretty, which doesn’t say anything bad about anyone who isn’t Korean. The news story was very non-specific to this incident, so this feels like a dead end even before pro’s responses. Pro of course uses the logical connection to the local place to which he suggested she would be a useful negotiator to bridge the gap into it being more about perceived culture than purely genetic heritage.
4. go back to your countries
Finally, something which could go somewhere toward the resolution.
This looks like pretty clear racism, ‘Speak English or Die’ type rhetoric. Pro amazingly defends that, showing that Omar weaponizes racist accusations even at inanimate objects and the USA in general. In this context, Trump talking back to her could be called cultural elitism, but thinking she’s inferior due to her skin color as opposed to where she’s from was not clearly shown.
It does of course remain highly suspect. With this con has reached a minimal BoP to be taken seriously, but it does not conclusively win the debate by itself given pro’s excellent defense. Someone can say someone eerily similar to what a member of the KKK might say, but not be a member nor supporter of the KKK. Trump for example was not shown to be in favor of forced deportations of any US citizens (which to point out the difference is not to defend the KKK as con claims).
5. Jewish Voters
This point had probably the least work put into it, when it would be worthy of an expansion into a stand-alone debate.
So getting to the heart of it... Pro shows some slightly off beliefs about ethnicities (no, I don’t buy his source as a comprehensive list proving there’s only about five ethnicities, even while it used umbrella terms which imply such), but that doesn’t harm his point that to be Jewish is more of a cultural (or religious as he directly states) thing than a racial one.
A problem does of course arise with how ambiguous the term Jew can be, as it’s religious, cultural, sometimes racial, etc. For it to be clear cut racism, it needs to be shown that it was contextually referring both to race, and then that the race is better or worse than other races for being that race; of which I did not spot any real attempt. This section basically turned into Red Herrings which were explored as if diving down a rabbit hole.
---
Arguments:
See above review of key points. BoP was on con to prove Donald Trump is racist, which he failed to do in light of pro’s alternative explanations for why any of these things might not be based on belief in orange (or whatever race's) superiority.
Going back to pro’s opening, I would say the problem is that while he manages to show echoes of racist talking points, he doesn’t show a racist intent or motivation. Probably racist, and certainly disliked, does not bridge the gap into racist.
Note: I dislike Trump. On race, he has a history of demanding special treatment due to his Native American blood (of which he claims to have more of than whole tribes). He’s very bigoted, and scary if his words are taken literally. However, that’s my outside the debate opinion and research. Victory is for what is presented inside the debate.
Conduct:
Con made a rule violation. Comparatively, pro made some jokes about people fleeing to Canada and showed lack of knowledge on racial terms, but neither distracted from the debate. I don’t see any issue with pro responding to con’s italic text which con imaged he might write.
S&G:
The formatting could have been better. Pro did some really weird formatting to cluster responses to ideas away from each other and to the next thing he was going to later respond to, which harms legibility, but technically his spelling and grammar were fine.
I'm personally not convinced that every possible world must actually exist.
---RFD---
In short, pro showed that the young earth model left the flood an impossibility with our anthropological record.
Interpreting the resolution:
This is a pretty specific setup... “this flood was less than 4500 years ago and contained 2 of each "kind" of animal, including dinosaurs.”
This puts a strong BoP on pro, that something simply did not happen. So for con to beat him, it just needs to rise to the level of probable.
Formulations (I can upload this somewhere if you'd like):
These are the calculations I made for the time and population estimates, which determine the feasibility or infeasibility within the changing years given within the debate.
Doubling rate sum population Doubling rate sum population
BCE years ago after flood /150 8^ /mile /feet /40 8^ /mile /feet
Pro's original 2406 4425 29.5 4.37678E+26 2.22284E+18 4.20993E+14
Con's original 2472 4491 29.94 1.09273E+27 5.54969E+18 1.05108E+15
Pyramids 1875 3894 597 3.98 3929.145833 1.9955E-05 3.77936E-09 14.925 3.01036E+13 152887.6269 28.95598995
Revised pyramids after founding 390,100 miles in Egypt
Egypt founded 2109 4128
first pyramid 1875 3894 234 1.56 25.63423608 6.5712E-05 1.24454E-08 5.85 191,901 0.491926789 9.3168E-05
1. History
A. Year
Got to say, while I’m normally a numbers guy, the description calls for less than 4500 years ago. If it’s BCE 2472 or BCE 2406 doesn’t matter in the greater context. Round to 4500 instead of 4491 years, and no one is going to nitpick.
B. Population rebound
Pro’s path here was somewhat indirect. The exponential doubling would have 5.55x10^18 people per every mile, or 1.05x10^15 for every foot of space on the earth’s surface (including water). This isn’t how population growth works...
Pro’s real point was just that we have recorded history which called for more people than are available in early years if we believe the flood happened.
C. The Pyramids
So on this one, I am skipping ahead to the refined time estimate con insisted upon, and pro agreed to. The population available across the whole planet would be 3929 (not a mere 48, which was his claim, but I’m redoing the math with con’s update)... Still, not enough to build those monstrosities, or even have a thriving slave cast in one corner of the world.
Con counters that Egypt started in BCE 2109, with a fresh group of only 8. Which 234 years later when they build the first pyramid, had a whole 25 people to do it. However, since this doesn’t give the desired answer, we apparently must double the doubling rate until it does. The population of the earth apparently now doubles every 40 years (in fairness, that site did go on to say 40)... So by this revision, Egypt had 5.85 exponential doublings, for a population of 191,901 when they build the first pyramid. ... Since con’s Harvard source insists it wasn’t slave labor, they were not willing to work themselves to death.
I am going to ignore the carbon dating issues on this.
This area casts some doubt on the flood fitting within the required timeline, but I give con credit for proving that this alone leaves the existence of the first pyramid within the realm of possibly without contradicting the flood.
D. Other Buildings
A very good building upon the previous contention, to show not only were generally greater populations needed to build these things than would be available, but that greater populations needed to exist all over. Further they apparently were all hired by Egypt for the pyramids rather than being elsewhere growing their populations...
One such work was apparently made with less than 400 people, the Tower of Babel, and the amazing crane technology from it was then used on the Pyramids... I am not seeing any source with any information to prove this thing existed, or even any records of ancient Egyptian cranes which were taken from it after it was completed to use on the pyramids.
Regarding the dating estimates, lines like “This discovery would have come as no surprise if the Bible had been used to establish these dates” lower the credibility of disputing anything. You can’t assume things don’t exist because they don’t fit into your worldview, or that they do exist despite lack of evidence when needed to justify your worldview.
2. The Ice Age
More of a support point than anything else, summarized as “It seems like whoever was left alive had far more stuff to worry about than building pyramids and emigrating to the Americas.”
On this one con did not wait a couple rounds to respond but did a bizarrely disjointed reply trying to prove it happened after the flood, which pro already agreed. It was like con could not comprehend lack of disagreement, so launched into a counter speech he prepared for someone else.
3. Genetics
Got to say it, pro could have made his case here a lot stronger with a more direct pointing to the genetic diversity seen in humans today... which at an obvious superficial level is to say skin colors.
This gets into damage done 100 generations ago, which we still see today, but even by con’s 40 year generational doubling rate, the entire population of the earth is only just about at its 15th, if we believe in the flood.
On this one con wanted to talk about the young earth independent of the flood, basically dropping the points relevant to his case. This debate is about a global flood 4500 years ago; even if the earth were only 10,000 years old, this would not prove the actual event this debate is about.
This point was well concluded with: “If all of us had a huge bottleneck like the one in the flood, it would have wiped out all genetic diversity.” Which is against con’s unfounded belief in perfect genetics.
4. Young Earth
This debate is about one event. I mean dinosaurs are cool, but even if we assume the world only 10,000 years, that would not suggest a flood happened 4500 years ago. This leaves all the complaints about soft tissue and such irrelevant to the resolution (which is negated if the evidence were to suggest the flood, but it having occurred any time over 10,000 years ago).
5. Rapid Erosion
Support point for the young earth. Some things happened rapidly. I would probably care more for this area if it didn’t keep relying on the same website with a singular goal. Could have been improved with the respectability of a .gov or .edu site for support.
6. Feasibility of the Biblical account
Back to something interesting... Okay this seems to be a defense point, to a line of attack with did not occur. This is a common problem with too much prep work, as copy/pasted what you pre-wrote expecting those lines of argument, do not always line up with what actually did occur.
A. No one says Noah was restricted to building it with his own two hands, no tools, and no help. ... Correction, pro does say that, and points out that it took Noah 120 years to build it... I have a hard time taking bits like this seriously, given that humans don’t live that long.
B. 1400 to 7000 kinds of animals; which seems doubtful, but good to have a minimal target... I think con was building a case that even less were needed because they could evolve after leaving the ark.
C. It lasted a year. Ok.
7. space requirements
My eyes are glazing over on this one. I’ll just trust that it was well done and showed the feasibility to this angle of the case.
8. Water
Yes, a global flood is a global flood. Not trying to Kritik it into saying it was a Flood which only happened in Noah’s mind (or only his yard... whatever), doesn’t need to be stated or expanded upon.
---
Arguments:
See above review of key points. I did lose patience at a certain point (as can be seen above with less and less being written on the points), but I am still voting because the points I analyzed at full depth are deterministic to the outcome. You could prove dinosaurs are flourishing today, and it would not change it. You could prove humans live 1000 years on average, and it would not change it. If we assume the arc is entirely feasible, that doesn’t override the lack of time afterward for the limited survivors to build all those ancient wonders; nor does it allow the variety of genetic problems seen on the planet today with origins older than the flood but somehow not affecting every survivor.
Side note: God is not the great deceiver; he does not plant evidence for our eyes and then demand we ignore it to have faith that his creations are lies he planted to make us doubt him... The FSM does that, but not God.
I mentioned this before in the comment section, but a debate like this might be better handled as a campaign of debates (like 5 or more different debates to the theme, each centered on a point... The water requirements of the arc being feasible as an example, or even just how many animals should be assumed to have been on it, if the 8 people or whatever could handle the workload as an other...).
Sources:
Books are a lovely thing, but as they are not readily verifiable, they should never be used for vital claims such as how Egypt is a young country. I doubt either of you read all those books this debate, so please just direct people to the websites which then listed them.
The genetics are the area which is motivating me here. The perfect genetics of the Ashkenazi Jewish population, suffering from a genetic bottleneck not seen in most other populations, not only ruined a good portion of cons case, but was left uncontested. I’m a human being, I care about my fellow man more so than a Strawmanning of cheetahs.
Good luck to you both. And of course welcome to the site.
A resource I highly recommend using: http://tiny.cc/DebateArt
In one way I'm glad pro forfeited; otherwise I suspect I would be having to remove votes which are based on the conclusion of the case, rather than debate content.
Altered Carbon is largely an exploration of the idea of immortality, and even if we were all immortal through some means, how the upper class would be so much more immortal than everyone else.
Lexx had a brilliant musical episode, which tackles the downsides to immortality on the mental state. Not required viewing, but very entertaining: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n7iIYhjiSQ
The exploitable hole I see right now, is someone could try to argue that children born in the third world will keep the life expectancy low. Which I don't think is the point of this debate, I am guessing you wish to argue that medical advances will enable someone alive today (let's say a young adult, 21 years old, and insanely wealthy) to live past 200 years. Not every 21 year old, and of course excluding violent ends...
Do you watch Altered Carbon? Or Lexx?
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: SupaDudz, armoredcat, bmdrocks21, sigmaphil, SirAnonymous, Trent0405 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:7; All points to Con.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Your votes have been deleted at the specific and repeated request of con (the person you voted for). While I am sorry for doing this, given that there was no malice from any of you, just an honest mistake made by the majority of people looking at this debate; but in re-review pro did indeed say something in R2, which makes this not an actual full forfeiture.
From the CoC: "A full-forfeit debate is defined as a debate that has no argument presented by one side following the opening round, resulting in all subsequent rounds being forfeited. When this is the case, these debates are considered full-forfeit debates and are not moderated unless a voter votes for the forfeiting side."
And as a general reminder for lesser forfeitures: People forfeit by degrees. Any unexcused forfeited rounds merits a conduct loss. However, for less than a 50% forfeiture, arguments must still be voted on or justified as a tie. ... Which is to say, conduct only awards are fine on debates like this, without going into any analysis.
**************************************************
SupaDudz
4 hours ago
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✗ ✗ ✔ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✗ ✔ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Better conduct ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Reason:
Boo socialism
armoredcat
6 hours ago
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✗ ✗ ✔ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✗ ✔ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Better conduct ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Reason:
Pro argued for something other than his resolution. Also eph eph
bmdrocks21
7 hours ago
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✗ ✗ ✔ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✗ ✔ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Better conduct ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Reason:
ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff
sigmaphil
8 hours ago
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✗ ✗ ✔ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✗ ✔ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Better conduct ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Reason:
Full Forfeit...
SirAnonymous
1 day ago
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✗ ✗ ✔ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✗ ✔ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Better conduct ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Reason:
FF and failure to meet BOP.
Trent0405
1 day ago
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✗ ✗ ✔ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✗ ✔ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Better conduct ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Reason:
Full Forfeit.
Thank you both for taking the time and effort to vote.
This [bleeping] debate... I swear I'll get a vote in.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Lazarous // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 3:3; 3 points to Pro, and 3 points to Con.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action: This is a tied vote (via wholly canceling itself out) which does indeed comment on the debate (and does so well, giving feedback to both sides). For more on tied votes: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1718/moderation-and-tied-votes
**************************************************
---RFD (1 of 2)---
Interpreting the resolution:
This nearly left arguments a tie, without a standard for what would be common on these scales, I am having a tough time weighting what would be enough to be considered common or uncommon.
1. Drake
The Drake Equation is a fun part of this debate, which alternates between lending support for pro and con. N=1 was a great point against relying on this.
2. Syllogism
Credit for a well-played syllogism under the likely uncommon heading. Certainly not common enough to be detectable. Pro did well trying to mitigate this, but it is a strong piece against his case.
3. Fermi Paradox
Tied to the syllogism, but pro’s replies are standout enough to merit partly separate consideration. Things like different communication technologies than us, or intelligent without those technologies. Con of course counters with a play on numbers, one that I have no problem with, it’s fairly straight forward; but pro uses the speed of light and the limited time we’ve been broadcasting as a solid defense (even if it was vulnerable to a flip of tying things back to how that does not imply common, such did not occur).
4. Extinction
I think con could have easily won the debate here had he supported our own survival being a fluke, as the basis for everything else is human-centric. However, this was not done. Moreover, the absence of sources left this a bit lackluster, an assertion not tied to the available evidence.
---RFD (2 of 2)---
Arguments:
See above review of key points. This is very close to being a tie to me. Had the resolution contained less qualifiers, it might have even gone against pro. As is, I basically have to weight us having not noticed anything in our quiet corner, against the hypothetical likelihood of activity elsewhere (or even nearby using different communication technologies). Basically, pro better supported his end of the hypothetical.
Sources:
I do view these as being within the tied range. While pro certainly had more, con made good use of those too, but did not outright steal them to his side.
Conduct:
I am not overly concerned with the minor format slip-up (as much as I’ve encouraged people to vote against me on conduct when I’ve done likewise), however the forfeiture is a clear matter. This bites twice, as having seen con’s performance I suspect he would have bridged the gap to at least a tie with just a concluding statement to tie things back together.
I’ll get a vote on this, just finished a very intense bit of Mafia.
As a fellow voter who believes in voting the evidence instead of bias, I applaud your vote integrity.
(in case anyone is curious, for the longest time my SOP was to not give points to either side on abortion debates, as I suspected I would have been an unfair judge...)
This topic is pretty open ended, which can be cool, but can also be annoying.
I thought I knew how I was voting, but in writing the vote I saw a point which I had not giving enough consideration... If nothing else, I'll get a conduct only vote in for the forfeit (the rule slip is also noted).
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: SirAnonymous // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 1:2; 1 point to Pro, and 2 points to Con.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action: Basically you can't vote sources just for /has sources/ you need to name one and what it did for the debate. You can revote at any time with that amended to your current vote.
To award sources points, the voter must:
(1) explain how the debaters' sources impacted the debate,
(2) directly assess the strength/utility of at least one source in particular cited in the debate, and
(3) explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall were notably superior to the other's.
**************************************************
SirAnonymous
17 days ago
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✗ ✔ ✗ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✗ ✔ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✔ ✗ 1 point
Better conduct ✔ ✗ ✗ 1 point
Reason:
Con forfeited a round, so Pro gets conduct.
Con used sources and Pro didn't, so Con wins sources.
Judging by the debate description, the BoP seems to be shared, so I will judge the arguments accordingly.
Both participants argued that their own philosophies would lead to personal happiness and the benefit of others. Pro argued that, by definition, hedonism is the pursuit of happiness, so it inevitably leads to happiness. Furthermore, most people are not pleased by harming others, so in their search for pleasure, they will not harm others. Contrarily, Con argued that HBOY (Congrats to the participants for coining the name of this interesting philosophy) would by definition help yourself and others. Con pointed out that hedonism has the problem that some people are pleased by hurting others, thus giving hedonism an inescapable moral problem. As Pro pointed out, however, HBOY has the exact same problem if someone believes that pain helps other. Thus, both philosophies are weakened by this same problem.
Pro also attempted to show a contradiction in HBOY because it is impossible to always help yourself and others. But as Con pointed out, HBOY only says to "try" to help others. If helping yourself and others is not always possible, there is no contradiction because only trying is required.
Overall, the moral problems both philosophies face cancel each other out, so arguments are a tie.
I have not forgotten this debate, I've just had a couple unexpectedly very long days...
One immediate bit of feedback I'll give, is that a debate like this might be better served separated into a series of smaller debates for the directly connected sub-topics.
Thank you for voting.
I haven't had coffee yet, but your vote looks like it is short on a justification for sources. You may want to amend that on.
To award sources points, the voter must:
(1) explain how the debaters' sources impacted the debate,
(2) directly assess the strength/utility of at least one source in particular cited in the debate, and
(3) explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall were notably superior to the other's.
As someone whose already made it deeper into this debate than I, what is your opinion of cited the MtDNA genetic damage?
At long last, I'm through the first half of this debate...
Never a good sign for a case when one side does exactly what the other said they'd do.
R2: Pro says something along the lines of “Well it’s not good evidence so it’s not evidence.”
Bookmarking this one.
There's a few factors for the low voter turnout. One big one I think is the number of students on the site being busy with finals.
R1 analysis.
Forfeit:
Around here we would call that a waived round. A truly forfeited round is misconduct to the degree that it results in a default negative point allocation.
BoP:
Had con tried to say BoP is on wholly pro, I would side against him. Shared BoP is what we end up calling this. But yes, pro cannot prove a negative, so his BoP is to disprove anything offered as not being evidence.
Definitions:
These make sense, and intuitively set a good scope limit (what Trump did 30 years ago, has nothing to do with any conduct in the presidency, so is not evidence related to it).
Contentions:
I'll withhold reviewing these until pro has responded to them. This breakdown was just of the preamble, and basically to say it's a good setup.
Quality is what gets votes removed, not which side was voted for.
Please don’t drag this one out with Gish Gallops...
Do either of you want the math formulations I'm doing as I read this?
Or even an argument that I'm an Asian man, will pass every test of validity, but will still need a little proof of soundness beyond just being valid.
FYI, I haven't even skimmed this yet, so I don't know if your opponent used lack of proof of soundness or not as an argument.
Before I try to read this, would one (or both) of you clarify the resolution? Like is pro arguing they exist and con that they don't, or is pro arguing morally in favor of said demons and con arguing morally against them...