On this, I must caution you about the word SHOULD. It can imply a moral thing, like it would be better if they did... What I suspect you mean, is that publicly traded companies will most likely out perform private companies.
You should probably clarify your definition of present time, mainly expand it. Does he need to have demonstrated racism this current minute (during which he might be sleeping, depending on when someone reads this), or how recently? ... Since he is associated with the presidency, I would probably point to that.
Failing this, his history is left fair game (including his demand for preferential treatment as a Native American ... he actually did this in I think it was 1994, a mere six years before he ran for president).
Yeah, the example I've given fails to generate offense, hence why I dismiss it as rubbish when I see it. Pure Pre-Fiat might be another name for it, to signify the lack of anything else (such as benefits and harms, which arguments should focus on).
Solvency Kritik would be a decent name for it, but I'm thinking of going with something about depression.
I do believe in legit attacks on arguments for solvency issues, but some are unwarranted. Like many arguments, there's a fine line to walk.
>>His argument doesn't lead to the world he wants to make, so it's pointless to go down that path. Sound right?
Very similar, but not quite. More like /That world will never happen anyway, so we shouldn't strive for it./ Easy examples: Women will never have the right to vote anyway, so this court shouldn't even listen to the arguments in favor of it.
My understanding of the terms is most are post-fiat, focusing on perceived damages from letting people get away with whatever. /What kind of world would we live in, if we allowed people to promote capitalism?/
When I refer to a pre-fiat kritik, I used an example that that world will never come about anyway, so we shouldn't even try. Granted, I'm open to better name suggestions.
I missed your previous question. A pre-fiat kritik is to basically side step the arguments by saying they would never happen. Like I say we should fix that bridge because of x y and z, and you answer with it'll never get fixed so all talk about how much better it would be if fixed is irrelevant.
If you both consent, my suggestion is to redo this debate with copy/pasted arguments from the current one (then have this one deleted). You could of course fix typos, and change the remaining number of rounds (could even make it a single round) and/or time to post arguments if you're inclined.
The debate which came from the comment section here (see comments #8-10, and #13-14) has finished:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1560/physicians-are-scientists
Why do you believe you did not request this debate?
Do you remember the words: "I won't spam links at you, but if you doubt me you can check any dictionary. If you insist, then we can have a debate on definitions within English. I am sorry for the mocking slow clap. As a combat former medic, your negative words towards the medical field touched a nerve." You then continued on the same trajectory...
Slightly difficult to answer while inside the voting period, but I'll give two-line snippet from the conclusion of each case...
Pro:
“A doctor who does not conduct experiments, would quickly find themselves in malpractice lawsuits for the various injuries they would inflict by giving treatments for the wrong ailments. It is necessary for any practicing modern physician to be a scientist.”
Con:
“My opponent has tried to use vague definitions to twist the term scientist into meaninglessness. Anyone who second guesses actions and then verifies them is now a scientist. Whether that question is about the workings of the world, or whether their car battery still has a charge.”
On women I was left torn due to the freedom angle from Pew Research. I am not positive how I would have graded it, but if all the same points were used with a focus on how women do on those measurements in the USA, that could have carried it. Some numbers would be needed. Such as 51% of people are women, and in 55% of those countries they do better by X, 61% they do better by Y, etc., it could have proven that for the average person the USA is worse to live in than the average other country.
I am feeling more in favor of one on one comparisons. Looking back on this, and realizing how tiny the character limit it (admittedly, my last debate was only 5k, but also 4 rounds...), I can imagine Saudi Arabia instead of the USA using all the same contentions (granted, the oppression of women there lacks any ambiguity, so it would be a much stronger counterpoint), and there just not being enough room to refute the general trends of how well that country is doing.
I'm adding a description to the HOF entries. Obviously, either of you may request changes. For this one, I am opting for:
This was a high-quality debate by two obviously talented debaters--one who I knew well, one who I did not. It clearly generated interest on the site, with a sizable number of comments and multiple votes, and it is a prime example of the civil yet thoughtful debate we want to promote on the site. Lots of interesting clash and clearly well-researched, the excellence of this debate speaks for itself.
-bsh1
...
Other comments I found on it within the voting and nomination:
I can offer this one as simply a pleasant read throughout, straightforward and clear wording
-RationalMadman
Probably the best debate on this website.
-Ramshutu
A fantastic example of what policy debates can be. It came from an exceptionally good starting place of mutual disagreement with the status quo and agreement that either side would be a marked improvement. This was easily among the closest debates I’ve ever graded, with both sides losing some of their points.
-Ragnar
---RFD (1 of 2)--
Gist:
I was left with the impression the USA is overall preferable. While some countries may be a better match for an individual (damn this reminded me of my final debate on DDO: https://www.debate.org/debates/The-Vast-Majority-of-Sociology-is-Useless./1/), weighing gives the USA enough benefit to overcome any shortcomings.
1. Education: Pro
Ranks well on education. Con counters that this is somehow evidence of poverty. Pro explains that the average rate favors the USA with “over 90% of Americans graduate high school, and 45.6% of Americans graduate college.”
2. Fiscal Well being vs. Poverty
We do extremely well with wealth distribution, but counterintuitively badly as well.
“more people are in poverty than there are millionaires and the evidence can't deny this” yes, this is a self-evident truth everywhere. Millionaires are the exception, apparently the USA has far more of them than other countries.
Generally pro held this well with pointing out consumption rates for those in poverty in the US, implies that poverty here is better than poverty elsewhere. Still, it’s a decent area of contest to which con cast some doubt on USA superiority. Giving this to con by a very small margin (I weigh things, meaning the margin of victory gives it a low weight compared to other points).
3. Freedom: pro
We do very well in this. That we could do even better, especially when this is supposed to be a comparison debate, does not refute this. Nor does if we’ve slipped, as we’re still well ahead of the average. That we can voice these complaints, is a wonderful example of our freedom.
I do however applaud the well-constructed pathos appeal.
4. Gender Equality
First, I need to address something: “None of PRO case matters if people are unequal based off the gender they identify as, a strong disadvantage.” We all want silver bullet points that override everything else, but this is a comparison debate. That is an identified area of weakness, which scores some points, but it does not override the other categories. The freedom point as an example, that people are free to identify as any gender they wish, actually bolsters that point.
Okay, getting back on track... Women do slightly worse than men in the USA. There’s some back and forth on this, such as Pew Research showing they have almost the same rights as men (4th place in the world if my skimming of that data is correct), and that they have more opportunities in management; but yes, there is a sex wage gap (not to be confused with a gender wage gap, as most publications do).
Giving this to con by a small margin, even while increasing the margin of victory for the freedom contention.
5. QOL
Largely repeats of tactics seen earlier, such as oh no, the rich are better off...
---
Arguments:
See above review of key points. While con came slightly ahead in a couple of areas, they do not cancel out pro’s substantial lead in others. Issues like if the USA might get worse, is hard to take seriously when that type of instability occurs everywhere.
Pondering this, I am unsure what path con could have best used for victory. Showing individual countries better than the USA, would not negate the on average part; and on averages, there’s always going to be some areas which come ahead. Perhaps a look at the rate of ethnic violence? Not sure how that would play out, it could have been reviewed as a tactic and summarily rejected.
I will say that the format of responses to the alternating rounds, was disjointing.
Enjoy your debate. Literally "extend" would be enough from here forward, given that your opponent will FF. However, if you want to test out different formatting options or anything, this is a good opportunity for that.
Before reading this debate, I did not have a clue who Yang was. I assume you'll be proven correct. I strongly doubt he'll rise to become a front runner this election.
My money is on Biden as the choice of the democratic party, as much as I'll keep my fingers crossed for Warren.
I've seen way too many people argue against birth control; so a debate focused on the approximate 13th week, should be refreshing to see. So good luck to you both!
Thank you for confirming that your grievance with the vote is not one of quality, but simply that it does not favor your arguments. You're supposed to challenge votes based on the former; to harass voters based on the later would create an unfair atmosphere tantamount to other forms of vote rigging.
Plus your claims are at the point of being indiscernible from a temper tantrum. Key example, the contradictory "Your a liar for what you said or you didn't even bother do read the debate." [sic]
At this point you're making extra arguments by repeated assertion in the comment section, to try to win after the fact.
Do you think voters don't see how you behave in the comment section? You just informed them that if they vote on this debate, you'll complain if they do not individually list every little footnote the either sides main points (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you would launch the exact same type of complaints were the vote in your favor).
You've already complained my RTD was too complex for you with the level of detail it has, and now you're also complaining that I did not copy/paste every single line of the debate and incorporate all the evidence from the sources for you? That's not the job of judges. We summarize and weigh important details which stand out to us. That a system seems to work at around $100, countered by the claim that at $1000 it would suddenly not be enough and would in no way help those with the least, is intuitively senseless to me. Plus you based your claims against UBI on "no evidence" when multiple lines of evidence were provided (as pro reminded us), and you then proceeded to complain that the evidence you claim doesn't exist was "unfair."
Gist:
We have one policy from Yang, and a complaint that it by itself would not raise someone over the poverty level so would in no way help; at a casual glance at the evidence, it seems like it would help those people the most (even while it would not raise them out of poverty... poverty isn’t all or nothing). Con should not have allowed this debate to focus so much on Yang, instead of bringing in some of Biden’s proposals (such as what is his plan to alleviate poverty?).
Comparatively, Biden is more politically effective. Very much an Obama vs. McCain moment. Sadly on this, I did not get a feel of any plans from Biden, merely that were he to have any they would be more likely to pass the senate and all that.
1. universal basic income: Pro
When introducing an acronym, it should be spelled out the first time.
Generally, it seems to be a good idea, with it well supported by sources.
Con counters that it’s not enough money, and only starts at 18. Which apparently would in no way help people below the poverty level, but strictly help the middle class and higher...
Pro counters that it would not fail to be given to people below the poverty level (as con implied), implying it would help them (which should have been spelled out).
Con ends up asking the rhetorical question “If he wasn't comparing them what was point?” As con answers, “same concept, so it proves that the concept of a UBI does indeed work.”
Sources: Tied
Both people put the research effort in, so I am leaving this tied.
The World Economic Forum was a good one, which offered an easy visual aid for how the system is intended to work (pulling this one again to counter the no evidence claim, tipped the debate). As was Wikipedia to explain how Trickle Up economics work, from a non-biased source. Con similarly used Wikipedia to hammer in his point that presidents have advisors for any areas they lack expertise.
***
Regarding the report on this debate: Walrus was confirmed as an alt of a banned user, but not until days into this debate. Further, there is no reason to believe the contender had knowledge of the issue with Walrus; whereas there is strong reason to suspect he already began to draft his counter arguments. It would be unfair to him to delete this debate unless he requests such.
The reported comment: Walrus was already banned before the report was made; there doesn't seem to be much benefit in doing anything about it (we're of course open to suggestions...).
-Ragnar, DM
P.S.
On a related note, I accepted a debate with Walrus to test him due to the suspicion. Me having suspicions and entering it willingly, did have said debate deleted even a full two rounds into it.
***
While I normally encourage people to ask any questions, I am not seeing much that was not already clearly answered within the vote itself.
>>You basically said here that UBI goes to neither side.
No, I said my outside opinion doesn't override the the performance offered by the debaters.
>>I am arguing for Biden so I am guessing this is a point for me. 0-1
More like x1-y1, to which the resulting weight of the x and y were already explained: "Comparatively, Biden is more politically effective. Very much an Obama vs. McCain moment. Sadly on this, I did not get a feel of any plans from Biden, merely that were he to have any they would be more likely to pass the senate and all that."
>> I am unsure if you give this to Pro or this goes to neither side.
As explained, "it’s a pre-fiat Kritik to which I do not buy the relevancy."
>> you haven't made it clear who has the better background in politics.
I repeatedly did, such as "2. Politically effective: Con" Of course boasting about the same thing twice under different headings, doesn't double its value.
>> From this I gather that this goes to neither side.
Correct, as noted when I said "it really doesn’t do much on this comparison."
>>your unclear direction of who won by each point
Let me make it clear for you, the pro at the end of "1. universal basic income: Pro" implies I gave that area to pro. And the con at the end of "2. Politically effective: Con" means it goes to con. Those were the main points of impact. The other three, did not do much to affect the weighing.
Common and Uncommon in the spam of galaxies should be pre-defined to avoid Kritiks about that.
2,500 seems like a fun challenge. The thing is, you'll always wish you had just 500 more to respond to all those points, but if there's more, there is more to which you need to to respond; so same problem.
---RFD (1 of 3)---
Interpreting the resolution:
There were other ways this could have played out, but it seems to boil down to Yang vs. Biden as president.
Gist:
We have one policy from Yang, and a complaint that it by itself would not raise someone over the poverty level so would in no way help; at a casual glance at the evidence, it seems like it would help those people the most (even while it would not raise them out of poverty... poverty isn’t all or nothing). Con should not have allowed this debate to focus so much on Yang, instead of bringing in some of Biden’s proposals (such as what is his plan to alleviate poverty?).
Comparatively, Biden is more politically effective. Very much an Obama vs. McCain moment. Sadly on this, I did not get a feel of any plans from Biden, merely that were he to have any they would be more likely to pass the senate and all that.
1. universal basic income: Pro
When introducing an acronym, it should be spelled out the first time.
Generally, it seems to be a good idea, with it well supported by sources.
Con counters that it’s not enough money, and only starts at 18. Which apparently would in no way help people below the poverty level, but strictly help the middle class and higher...
Pro counters that it would not fail to be given to people below the poverty level (as con implied), implying it would help them (which should have been spelled out).
Con ends up asking the rhetorical question “If he wasn't comparing them what was point?” As con answers, “same concept, so it proves that the concept of a UBI does indeed work.”
NOTE: This isn’t weighing into my vote... I highly doubt the UBI would work out so well (it might, but I have doubts). I’m quite surprised I did not see talk of inflation to further mitigate it.
2. Politically effective: Con
Biden has passed more policies than Yang, plus comparing Yang’s mannerisms to that of the current president.
Pro counters with a mitigation tactic of pointing out another valid comparison, that Yang’s shortage in one area is made up for in another, to which Biden lacks experience (running a company I think?).
Con points out advisors may be hired to meet any shortcoming... Pro argues likewise.
This point does favor Biden, as it mitigates the effectiveness of Yang’s attempts at passing policies.
3. higher chance of winning
As tempting as this area is, it’s a pre-fiat Kritik to which I do not buy the relevancy.
Pro: Please maintain headings for contentions. Had your reply to this mattered, it could have been lost in the jumble.
“Given my opponent didn't deny Biden has a higher chance of winning means he doesn't disagree with Biden should be elected because he has a higher chance of winning as seen by the polls.” Don’t pull this BS, the same logic says Trump should be president for life (which would be its own debate), because he’s a more popular president than any contenders. Pro of course repeats the relevancy problem.
4. One debate
The heading for this was pretty bad. What con likely meant to imply is that Biden has a long history, a proven quantity... To someone like me who doesn’t know who Yang is, it left me with the impression that Yang apparently got into a single debate, and is basing a bid for presidency on that (which I suspect is untrue well ahead of reading the replies pro will no doubt give).
Pro counters that Yang wants to be a president for more policies, and that a single debate is an unfair measure to judge him (this would have been an ideal time to link more things by which to judge him).
5. Cares about humans
This probably should have been a subheading under the one debate heading (just a little advise for next time).
This was a decently done emotional appeal (don’t claim it wasn’t. That I call something what it objectively is, doesn’t mean I’m insulting it).
Pro counters that the memory skills displayed do not harm Biden (so on this, I am guessing they’re implying a better than a certain other candidate; but it really doesn’t do much on this comparison).
Note: Biden has not been shown to be an unfeeling robot, so this point doesn’t carry much weight given that Biden probably likewise cares about humans.
---
Arguments:
See above review of key points. There were more points to that, but health care for example they wanted to talk about as a footnote to unrelated points, rather than as something they thought impactful enough to merit a heading.
Sources: Tied
Both people put the research effort in, so I am leaving this tied.
The World Economic Forum was a good one, which offered an easy visual aid for how the system is intended to work (pulling this one again to counter the no evidence claim, tipped the debate). As was Wikipedia to explain how Trickle Up economics work, from a non-biased source. Con similarly used Wikipedia to hammer in his point that presidents have advisors for any areas they lack expertise.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Walrus // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 7:0; All points to Pro.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
In order to be eligible to vote on debates, a user's current accounts must BOTH
(1) reflect that they have read the site's COC, AND
(2) either completed at least two non-troll debates without any forfeits OR posted 100 forum posts.
Any user who attempts to vote without having these criteria met will have their vote removed. If a user repeatedly attempts to vote without having met these criteria, their voting privileges may be suspended.
**************************************************
Walrus
3 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:
this looks silly but yeah full forfeit thing
---RFD (1 of 4)---
Sorry you guys did not get votes in on time. This is too little too late, but better late than never...
Interpreting the resolution:
Straight forward, except for the odd double negative in the resolution.
Gist:
Both dropped so much... And so many other bits were just not relavent (both wanted to talk about Obama for example, which there was only one instance where I saw the relevance) So when I read this, I was taking Chris seriously, and then it was revealed that apparently Trump defeated ISIS, which Clinton (not even Bill who was president, but Hillary... WTF?) and Obama created. This is just so mind boggling, that I don’t know if I should re-read the whole thing with a comedic tone or not? Shortly thereafter a source which specifically says no Hillary Clinton did not sell guns to ISIS was used by him as proof that she sold guns to them... Anyway, grading this via a breakdown of the key points below...
0.
While the 7 page google doc actually fit within the character limit, it was a bit of a bad source. On the first page launching a complaint about how wrong it was for Virt to welcome Bill, it harmed the credibility of the rest. Then it attacked the very resolution, rather than waiting for any points tied to it. Attacking sources on an external doc, without copying the links, requires that this debate have how many separate windows? Pretty swiftly complaining news site lets you view their story but is trying to get people to sign up for memberships (but you can still view the content, so why does it matter?). All this said, want to just judge the in debate content, and let trust that Chris will respond, but it too swiftly became clear he did not. Not responding to things because you responded outside of the debate, doesn’t respond to them. You could copy/paste your previous responses even.
1. Observations
The debate is not about Obama or Clinton. Ok. Granted, Virt gave up a major advantage here, in that he otherwise could have pointed to any better republican candidate.
2. dementia
Trump doesn’t even know who the speaker of the house is when talking about them. This is pretty damning. While it could be things other than dementia, it remains a problem which if not damning, should be concerning to anyone.
3. Tweets
So on this Chris had the complaint that they were unsourced in the prior debate. In this one, they are sourced, but Chris refuses to address them when updated, leaving them dropped. Plus to deny global warming is one thing, but to say we should leverage it to prevent the cycle of winter, is terrifying.
4. Impeachable Offenses
A. “Trump knowingly asked a foreign government to investigate Biden and threatened to withhold foreign aid if they didn't.” Chris twists this around, but doesn’t actually challenge the facts of the situation, even citing Trump’s own words that he did knowingly did this.
B. “Trump's refusal to divest from his company and encourage foreign governments to visit his property.” Chris cites the law on it, which “prohibits federal officeholders from receiving any gift, payment, or other thing of value from a foreign state or its rulers, officers, or representatives.” So according to Chris, this is blatantly violated. As for the tax returns, pro did not convince me that it’s an issue. (not going to remark on the 22 confusion)
C. With the mention of Bill Clinton, I am moving on (we all get tempted to point out hypocrisy, but it’s actually a bit of an off topic Kritik).
5. Donald Trump should be re-elected in 2020
Side note: “Sean Hannity of Fox News also explains President Donald Trump's accomplishments that the media won't talk about” nice joke, but declaring that Fox News secretly isn’t really part of the media, is wholly senseless.
Responding to being accused of Gish Galloping, by transcribing the Gish Gallop, is not enduring. Chris, Virt asked you to just pick the best of from those sources, he did not say you must also include the negative (you are right in that part being his job).
Side note: Virt, while I understand the rhetoric tactic of talking down on Nixon, the man founded the EPA! Even in this debate, part of your argument against Trump is for environmental reasons; just imagine if the EPA were not an obstacle? ... And again, this debate is about Trump, not anyone else.
A. Economic boom, but apparently, we’re in a manufacturing recession (even if a slight one, that’s still not the reported boom).
The economy was already good, as shown with the deficit apparently being cut in half, to more than doubling again (light skimming of the article).
B. Trump’s policy against the Kurds helped ISIS... This area is addressed up top, I am going to try to ignore this one.
C. Chris insists Trump built the wall, and because Trump wrote a Tweet which says Mexico is paying for it, it must be true... Virt used the canceled projects which we would otherwise be doing to prove that we are indeed paying, and it is not built yet.
---
Arguments:
See above review of key points.
Trump hurt the economy; when his economic impact was cited as good for us. He doesn’t know who the Speaker of the House is, because his mind is slipping; that many of us would like for her to not be, doesn’t change the problem. He complains of the shortage on global warming; Chris could have said he was mocking the concept, but instead he defended that we should embrace it, which to get rid of winter would intuitively result in fatal summers... These core aspects, all weigh in favor of Virt.
Sources:
While sources sometimes have ease of access problems, none of these seemed overwhelming, and both sides indeed put in their full research efforts. I will say that I have a pet peeve against URL shorteners, as I like to know at a glance what to expect (university education...).
Conduct:
Neither distracted from the debate with a bunch of insults. While I note the Gish Gallop, it shifts the point but does not wholly move it enough alone.
Note that I consider this a troll debate, and still voted based on debate content. I have long disliked that comedic debates are outright non-moderated. However, that they are non-moderated is the current standard; a standard you knew both when you accepted the debate with that facetious description, and ended it with a cheeky declaration of love.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: SupaDudz // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:4; 4 points to Con.
>Reason for Decision: See below
>Reason for Mod Action:
Full Forfeitures, explicit concessions, competitions, truisms, and comedy (even if facetious) are not eligible for moderation (barring certain exceptions)
This is one of those exceptions... Generally this is enacted for simple mistakes (such as a concession or FF, but the voter mistakingly voted for the wrong side)
**************************************************
I might get around to this one. However, I do need to say that proving soundless is a lot harder than proving validity.
On this, I must caution you about the word SHOULD. It can imply a moral thing, like it would be better if they did... What I suspect you mean, is that publicly traded companies will most likely out perform private companies.
You should probably clarify your definition of present time, mainly expand it. Does he need to have demonstrated racism this current minute (during which he might be sleeping, depending on when someone reads this), or how recently? ... Since he is associated with the presidency, I would probably point to that.
Failing this, his history is left fair game (including his demand for preferential treatment as a Native American ... he actually did this in I think it was 1994, a mere six years before he ran for president).
Yeah, the example I've given fails to generate offense, hence why I dismiss it as rubbish when I see it. Pure Pre-Fiat might be another name for it, to signify the lack of anything else (such as benefits and harms, which arguments should focus on).
The internal premise being challenged is that it could happen at all.
I wouldn't call it a standard rebuttal, because it basically ignores all the contentions.
Solvency Kritik would be a decent name for it, but I'm thinking of going with something about depression.
I do believe in legit attacks on arguments for solvency issues, but some are unwarranted. Like many arguments, there's a fine line to walk.
>>His argument doesn't lead to the world he wants to make, so it's pointless to go down that path. Sound right?
Very similar, but not quite. More like /That world will never happen anyway, so we shouldn't strive for it./ Easy examples: Women will never have the right to vote anyway, so this court shouldn't even listen to the arguments in favor of it.
Thank you for voting!
My understanding of the terms is most are post-fiat, focusing on perceived damages from letting people get away with whatever. /What kind of world would we live in, if we allowed people to promote capitalism?/
When I refer to a pre-fiat kritik, I used an example that that world will never come about anyway, so we shouldn't even try. Granted, I'm open to better name suggestions.
Good luck!
I missed your previous question. A pre-fiat kritik is to basically side step the arguments by saying they would never happen. Like I say we should fix that bridge because of x y and z, and you answer with it'll never get fixed so all talk about how much better it would be if fixed is irrelevant.
If you both consent, my suggestion is to redo this debate with copy/pasted arguments from the current one (then have this one deleted). You could of course fix typos, and change the remaining number of rounds (could even make it a single round) and/or time to post arguments if you're inclined.
"If you insist, then we can have a debate on definitions within English." ... And then you insisted.
The debate which came from the comment section here (see comments #8-10, and #13-14) has finished:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1560/physicians-are-scientists
Why do you believe you did not request this debate?
Do you remember the words: "I won't spam links at you, but if you doubt me you can check any dictionary. If you insist, then we can have a debate on definitions within English. I am sorry for the mocking slow clap. As a combat former medic, your negative words towards the medical field touched a nerve." You then continued on the same trajectory...
Slightly difficult to answer while inside the voting period, but I'll give two-line snippet from the conclusion of each case...
Pro:
“A doctor who does not conduct experiments, would quickly find themselves in malpractice lawsuits for the various injuries they would inflict by giving treatments for the wrong ailments. It is necessary for any practicing modern physician to be a scientist.”
Con:
“My opponent has tried to use vague definitions to twist the term scientist into meaninglessness. Anyone who second guesses actions and then verifies them is now a scientist. Whether that question is about the workings of the world, or whether their car battery still has a charge.”
If anyone does not feel comfortable voting, feedback outside of votes would still be appreciated.
With 8 arguments at 25K each, I'll keep my fingers crossed that someone else votes on this.
On women I was left torn due to the freedom angle from Pew Research. I am not positive how I would have graded it, but if all the same points were used with a focus on how women do on those measurements in the USA, that could have carried it. Some numbers would be needed. Such as 51% of people are women, and in 55% of those countries they do better by X, 61% they do better by Y, etc., it could have proven that for the average person the USA is worse to live in than the average other country.
I am feeling more in favor of one on one comparisons. Looking back on this, and realizing how tiny the character limit it (admittedly, my last debate was only 5k, but also 4 rounds...), I can imagine Saudi Arabia instead of the USA using all the same contentions (granted, the oppression of women there lacks any ambiguity, so it would be a much stronger counterpoint), and there just not being enough room to refute the general trends of how well that country is doing.
I've added some details to the HoF entries, unfortunately this one lacked any justified votes from which to grab one.
You or anyone else is of course welcome to suggest an endorsement for this debate, to be added to the HoF entry.
I'm adding a description to the HOF entries. Obviously, either of you may request changes. For this one, I am opting for:
This was a high-quality debate by two obviously talented debaters--one who I knew well, one who I did not. It clearly generated interest on the site, with a sizable number of comments and multiple votes, and it is a prime example of the civil yet thoughtful debate we want to promote on the site. Lots of interesting clash and clearly well-researched, the excellence of this debate speaks for itself.
-bsh1
...
Other comments I found on it within the voting and nomination:
I can offer this one as simply a pleasant read throughout, straightforward and clear wording
-RationalMadman
Probably the best debate on this website.
-Ramshutu
A fantastic example of what policy debates can be. It came from an exceptionally good starting place of mutual disagreement with the status quo and agreement that either side would be a marked improvement. This was easily among the closest debates I’ve ever graded, with both sides losing some of their points.
-Ragnar
---RFD (1 of 2)--
Gist:
I was left with the impression the USA is overall preferable. While some countries may be a better match for an individual (damn this reminded me of my final debate on DDO: https://www.debate.org/debates/The-Vast-Majority-of-Sociology-is-Useless./1/), weighing gives the USA enough benefit to overcome any shortcomings.
1. Education: Pro
Ranks well on education. Con counters that this is somehow evidence of poverty. Pro explains that the average rate favors the USA with “over 90% of Americans graduate high school, and 45.6% of Americans graduate college.”
2. Fiscal Well being vs. Poverty
We do extremely well with wealth distribution, but counterintuitively badly as well.
“more people are in poverty than there are millionaires and the evidence can't deny this” yes, this is a self-evident truth everywhere. Millionaires are the exception, apparently the USA has far more of them than other countries.
Generally pro held this well with pointing out consumption rates for those in poverty in the US, implies that poverty here is better than poverty elsewhere. Still, it’s a decent area of contest to which con cast some doubt on USA superiority. Giving this to con by a very small margin (I weigh things, meaning the margin of victory gives it a low weight compared to other points).
3. Freedom: pro
We do very well in this. That we could do even better, especially when this is supposed to be a comparison debate, does not refute this. Nor does if we’ve slipped, as we’re still well ahead of the average. That we can voice these complaints, is a wonderful example of our freedom.
I do however applaud the well-constructed pathos appeal.
4. Gender Equality
First, I need to address something: “None of PRO case matters if people are unequal based off the gender they identify as, a strong disadvantage.” We all want silver bullet points that override everything else, but this is a comparison debate. That is an identified area of weakness, which scores some points, but it does not override the other categories. The freedom point as an example, that people are free to identify as any gender they wish, actually bolsters that point.
Okay, getting back on track... Women do slightly worse than men in the USA. There’s some back and forth on this, such as Pew Research showing they have almost the same rights as men (4th place in the world if my skimming of that data is correct), and that they have more opportunities in management; but yes, there is a sex wage gap (not to be confused with a gender wage gap, as most publications do).
Giving this to con by a small margin, even while increasing the margin of victory for the freedom contention.
5. QOL
Largely repeats of tactics seen earlier, such as oh no, the rich are better off...
---
Arguments:
See above review of key points. While con came slightly ahead in a couple of areas, they do not cancel out pro’s substantial lead in others. Issues like if the USA might get worse, is hard to take seriously when that type of instability occurs everywhere.
Pondering this, I am unsure what path con could have best used for victory. Showing individual countries better than the USA, would not negate the on average part; and on averages, there’s always going to be some areas which come ahead. Perhaps a look at the rate of ethnic violence? Not sure how that would play out, it could have been reviewed as a tactic and summarily rejected.
I will say that the format of responses to the alternating rounds, was disjointing.
Enjoy your debate. Literally "extend" would be enough from here forward, given that your opponent will FF. However, if you want to test out different formatting options or anything, this is a good opportunity for that.
Before reading this debate, I did not have a clue who Yang was. I assume you'll be proven correct. I strongly doubt he'll rise to become a front runner this election.
My money is on Biden as the choice of the democratic party, as much as I'll keep my fingers crossed for Warren.
And I'm leaning 50/50 on Trump being reelected.
I've seen way too many people argue against birth control; so a debate focused on the approximate 13th week, should be refreshing to see. So good luck to you both!
Thank you for confirming that your grievance with the vote is not one of quality, but simply that it does not favor your arguments. You're supposed to challenge votes based on the former; to harass voters based on the later would create an unfair atmosphere tantamount to other forms of vote rigging.
Plus your claims are at the point of being indiscernible from a temper tantrum. Key example, the contradictory "Your a liar for what you said or you didn't even bother do read the debate." [sic]
At this point you're making extra arguments by repeated assertion in the comment section, to try to win after the fact.
Do you think voters don't see how you behave in the comment section? You just informed them that if they vote on this debate, you'll complain if they do not individually list every little footnote the either sides main points (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you would launch the exact same type of complaints were the vote in your favor).
You've already complained my RTD was too complex for you with the level of detail it has, and now you're also complaining that I did not copy/paste every single line of the debate and incorporate all the evidence from the sources for you? That's not the job of judges. We summarize and weigh important details which stand out to us. That a system seems to work at around $100, countered by the claim that at $1000 it would suddenly not be enough and would in no way help those with the least, is intuitively senseless to me. Plus you based your claims against UBI on "no evidence" when multiple lines of evidence were provided (as pro reminded us), and you then proceeded to complain that the evidence you claim doesn't exist was "unfair."
Gist:
We have one policy from Yang, and a complaint that it by itself would not raise someone over the poverty level so would in no way help; at a casual glance at the evidence, it seems like it would help those people the most (even while it would not raise them out of poverty... poverty isn’t all or nothing). Con should not have allowed this debate to focus so much on Yang, instead of bringing in some of Biden’s proposals (such as what is his plan to alleviate poverty?).
Comparatively, Biden is more politically effective. Very much an Obama vs. McCain moment. Sadly on this, I did not get a feel of any plans from Biden, merely that were he to have any they would be more likely to pass the senate and all that.
1. universal basic income: Pro
When introducing an acronym, it should be spelled out the first time.
Generally, it seems to be a good idea, with it well supported by sources.
Con counters that it’s not enough money, and only starts at 18. Which apparently would in no way help people below the poverty level, but strictly help the middle class and higher...
Pro counters that it would not fail to be given to people below the poverty level (as con implied), implying it would help them (which should have been spelled out).
Con ends up asking the rhetorical question “If he wasn't comparing them what was point?” As con answers, “same concept, so it proves that the concept of a UBI does indeed work.”
Sources: Tied
Both people put the research effort in, so I am leaving this tied.
The World Economic Forum was a good one, which offered an easy visual aid for how the system is intended to work (pulling this one again to counter the no evidence claim, tipped the debate). As was Wikipedia to explain how Trickle Up economics work, from a non-biased source. Con similarly used Wikipedia to hammer in his point that presidents have advisors for any areas they lack expertise.
***
Regarding the report on this debate: Walrus was confirmed as an alt of a banned user, but not until days into this debate. Further, there is no reason to believe the contender had knowledge of the issue with Walrus; whereas there is strong reason to suspect he already began to draft his counter arguments. It would be unfair to him to delete this debate unless he requests such.
The reported comment: Walrus was already banned before the report was made; there doesn't seem to be much benefit in doing anything about it (we're of course open to suggestions...).
-Ragnar, DM
P.S.
On a related note, I accepted a debate with Walrus to test him due to the suspicion. Me having suspicions and entering it willingly, did have said debate deleted even a full two rounds into it.
***
While I normally encourage people to ask any questions, I am not seeing much that was not already clearly answered within the vote itself.
>>You basically said here that UBI goes to neither side.
No, I said my outside opinion doesn't override the the performance offered by the debaters.
>>I am arguing for Biden so I am guessing this is a point for me. 0-1
More like x1-y1, to which the resulting weight of the x and y were already explained: "Comparatively, Biden is more politically effective. Very much an Obama vs. McCain moment. Sadly on this, I did not get a feel of any plans from Biden, merely that were he to have any they would be more likely to pass the senate and all that."
>> I am unsure if you give this to Pro or this goes to neither side.
As explained, "it’s a pre-fiat Kritik to which I do not buy the relevancy."
>> you haven't made it clear who has the better background in politics.
I repeatedly did, such as "2. Politically effective: Con" Of course boasting about the same thing twice under different headings, doesn't double its value.
>> From this I gather that this goes to neither side.
Correct, as noted when I said "it really doesn’t do much on this comparison."
>>your unclear direction of who won by each point
Let me make it clear for you, the pro at the end of "1. universal basic income: Pro" implies I gave that area to pro. And the con at the end of "2. Politically effective: Con" means it goes to con. Those were the main points of impact. The other three, did not do much to affect the weighing.
www.smbc-comics.com/comic/your-kid
"Talking about the realism of implementing a UBI is off-topic"
That would be a pre-fiat Kritik, which are indeed off topic to these hypotheticals.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6FuZNfFODM
Before reading this...
Common and Uncommon in the spam of galaxies should be pre-defined to avoid Kritiks about that.
2,500 seems like a fun challenge. The thing is, you'll always wish you had just 500 more to respond to all those points, but if there's more, there is more to which you need to to respond; so same problem.
---RFD (1 of 3)---
Interpreting the resolution:
There were other ways this could have played out, but it seems to boil down to Yang vs. Biden as president.
Gist:
We have one policy from Yang, and a complaint that it by itself would not raise someone over the poverty level so would in no way help; at a casual glance at the evidence, it seems like it would help those people the most (even while it would not raise them out of poverty... poverty isn’t all or nothing). Con should not have allowed this debate to focus so much on Yang, instead of bringing in some of Biden’s proposals (such as what is his plan to alleviate poverty?).
Comparatively, Biden is more politically effective. Very much an Obama vs. McCain moment. Sadly on this, I did not get a feel of any plans from Biden, merely that were he to have any they would be more likely to pass the senate and all that.
1. universal basic income: Pro
When introducing an acronym, it should be spelled out the first time.
Generally, it seems to be a good idea, with it well supported by sources.
Con counters that it’s not enough money, and only starts at 18. Which apparently would in no way help people below the poverty level, but strictly help the middle class and higher...
Pro counters that it would not fail to be given to people below the poverty level (as con implied), implying it would help them (which should have been spelled out).
Con ends up asking the rhetorical question “If he wasn't comparing them what was point?” As con answers, “same concept, so it proves that the concept of a UBI does indeed work.”
NOTE: This isn’t weighing into my vote... I highly doubt the UBI would work out so well (it might, but I have doubts). I’m quite surprised I did not see talk of inflation to further mitigate it.
2. Politically effective: Con
Biden has passed more policies than Yang, plus comparing Yang’s mannerisms to that of the current president.
Pro counters with a mitigation tactic of pointing out another valid comparison, that Yang’s shortage in one area is made up for in another, to which Biden lacks experience (running a company I think?).
Con points out advisors may be hired to meet any shortcoming... Pro argues likewise.
This point does favor Biden, as it mitigates the effectiveness of Yang’s attempts at passing policies.
3. higher chance of winning
As tempting as this area is, it’s a pre-fiat Kritik to which I do not buy the relevancy.
Pro: Please maintain headings for contentions. Had your reply to this mattered, it could have been lost in the jumble.
“Given my opponent didn't deny Biden has a higher chance of winning means he doesn't disagree with Biden should be elected because he has a higher chance of winning as seen by the polls.” Don’t pull this BS, the same logic says Trump should be president for life (which would be its own debate), because he’s a more popular president than any contenders. Pro of course repeats the relevancy problem.
4. One debate
The heading for this was pretty bad. What con likely meant to imply is that Biden has a long history, a proven quantity... To someone like me who doesn’t know who Yang is, it left me with the impression that Yang apparently got into a single debate, and is basing a bid for presidency on that (which I suspect is untrue well ahead of reading the replies pro will no doubt give).
Pro counters that Yang wants to be a president for more policies, and that a single debate is an unfair measure to judge him (this would have been an ideal time to link more things by which to judge him).
5. Cares about humans
This probably should have been a subheading under the one debate heading (just a little advise for next time).
This was a decently done emotional appeal (don’t claim it wasn’t. That I call something what it objectively is, doesn’t mean I’m insulting it).
Pro counters that the memory skills displayed do not harm Biden (so on this, I am guessing they’re implying a better than a certain other candidate; but it really doesn’t do much on this comparison).
Note: Biden has not been shown to be an unfeeling robot, so this point doesn’t carry much weight given that Biden probably likewise cares about humans.
---
Arguments:
See above review of key points. There were more points to that, but health care for example they wanted to talk about as a footnote to unrelated points, rather than as something they thought impactful enough to merit a heading.
Sources: Tied
Both people put the research effort in, so I am leaving this tied.
The World Economic Forum was a good one, which offered an easy visual aid for how the system is intended to work (pulling this one again to counter the no evidence claim, tipped the debate). As was Wikipedia to explain how Trickle Up economics work, from a non-biased source. Con similarly used Wikipedia to hammer in his point that presidents have advisors for any areas they lack expertise.
It was determined he was a previously banned user. He won’t be back on this account.
We should totally go out celebrating Christmas with Black Friday shopping instead! 🤣
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Walrus // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 7:0; All points to Pro.
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
In order to be eligible to vote on debates, a user's current accounts must BOTH
(1) reflect that they have read the site's COC, AND
(2) either completed at least two non-troll debates without any forfeits OR posted 100 forum posts.
Any user who attempts to vote without having these criteria met will have their vote removed. If a user repeatedly attempts to vote without having met these criteria, their voting privileges may be suspended.
**************************************************
Walrus
3 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:
this looks silly but yeah full forfeit thing
Just a friendly reminder that there is now only one day remaining to post arguments.
I'm very much intrigued!
---RFD (1 of 4)---
Sorry you guys did not get votes in on time. This is too little too late, but better late than never...
Interpreting the resolution:
Straight forward, except for the odd double negative in the resolution.
Gist:
Both dropped so much... And so many other bits were just not relavent (both wanted to talk about Obama for example, which there was only one instance where I saw the relevance) So when I read this, I was taking Chris seriously, and then it was revealed that apparently Trump defeated ISIS, which Clinton (not even Bill who was president, but Hillary... WTF?) and Obama created. This is just so mind boggling, that I don’t know if I should re-read the whole thing with a comedic tone or not? Shortly thereafter a source which specifically says no Hillary Clinton did not sell guns to ISIS was used by him as proof that she sold guns to them... Anyway, grading this via a breakdown of the key points below...
0.
While the 7 page google doc actually fit within the character limit, it was a bit of a bad source. On the first page launching a complaint about how wrong it was for Virt to welcome Bill, it harmed the credibility of the rest. Then it attacked the very resolution, rather than waiting for any points tied to it. Attacking sources on an external doc, without copying the links, requires that this debate have how many separate windows? Pretty swiftly complaining news site lets you view their story but is trying to get people to sign up for memberships (but you can still view the content, so why does it matter?). All this said, want to just judge the in debate content, and let trust that Chris will respond, but it too swiftly became clear he did not. Not responding to things because you responded outside of the debate, doesn’t respond to them. You could copy/paste your previous responses even.
1. Observations
The debate is not about Obama or Clinton. Ok. Granted, Virt gave up a major advantage here, in that he otherwise could have pointed to any better republican candidate.
2. dementia
Trump doesn’t even know who the speaker of the house is when talking about them. This is pretty damning. While it could be things other than dementia, it remains a problem which if not damning, should be concerning to anyone.
3. Tweets
So on this Chris had the complaint that they were unsourced in the prior debate. In this one, they are sourced, but Chris refuses to address them when updated, leaving them dropped. Plus to deny global warming is one thing, but to say we should leverage it to prevent the cycle of winter, is terrifying.
4. Impeachable Offenses
A. “Trump knowingly asked a foreign government to investigate Biden and threatened to withhold foreign aid if they didn't.” Chris twists this around, but doesn’t actually challenge the facts of the situation, even citing Trump’s own words that he did knowingly did this.
B. “Trump's refusal to divest from his company and encourage foreign governments to visit his property.” Chris cites the law on it, which “prohibits federal officeholders from receiving any gift, payment, or other thing of value from a foreign state or its rulers, officers, or representatives.” So according to Chris, this is blatantly violated. As for the tax returns, pro did not convince me that it’s an issue. (not going to remark on the 22 confusion)
C. With the mention of Bill Clinton, I am moving on (we all get tempted to point out hypocrisy, but it’s actually a bit of an off topic Kritik).
5. Donald Trump should be re-elected in 2020
Side note: “Sean Hannity of Fox News also explains President Donald Trump's accomplishments that the media won't talk about” nice joke, but declaring that Fox News secretly isn’t really part of the media, is wholly senseless.
Responding to being accused of Gish Galloping, by transcribing the Gish Gallop, is not enduring. Chris, Virt asked you to just pick the best of from those sources, he did not say you must also include the negative (you are right in that part being his job).
Side note: Virt, while I understand the rhetoric tactic of talking down on Nixon, the man founded the EPA! Even in this debate, part of your argument against Trump is for environmental reasons; just imagine if the EPA were not an obstacle? ... And again, this debate is about Trump, not anyone else.
A. Economic boom, but apparently, we’re in a manufacturing recession (even if a slight one, that’s still not the reported boom).
The economy was already good, as shown with the deficit apparently being cut in half, to more than doubling again (light skimming of the article).
B. Trump’s policy against the Kurds helped ISIS... This area is addressed up top, I am going to try to ignore this one.
C. Chris insists Trump built the wall, and because Trump wrote a Tweet which says Mexico is paying for it, it must be true... Virt used the canceled projects which we would otherwise be doing to prove that we are indeed paying, and it is not built yet.
---
Arguments:
See above review of key points.
Trump hurt the economy; when his economic impact was cited as good for us. He doesn’t know who the Speaker of the House is, because his mind is slipping; that many of us would like for her to not be, doesn’t change the problem. He complains of the shortage on global warming; Chris could have said he was mocking the concept, but instead he defended that we should embrace it, which to get rid of winter would intuitively result in fatal summers... These core aspects, all weigh in favor of Virt.
Sources:
While sources sometimes have ease of access problems, none of these seemed overwhelming, and both sides indeed put in their full research efforts. I will say that I have a pet peeve against URL shorteners, as I like to know at a glance what to expect (university education...).
Conduct:
Neither distracted from the debate with a bunch of insults. While I note the Gish Gallop, it shifts the point but does not wholly move it enough alone.
S&G:
Mainly, see point 0 above.
Note that I consider this a troll debate, and still voted based on debate content. I have long disliked that comedic debates are outright non-moderated. However, that they are non-moderated is the current standard; a standard you knew both when you accepted the debate with that facetious description, and ended it with a cheeky declaration of love.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: SupaDudz // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:4; 4 points to Con.
>Reason for Decision: See below
>Reason for Mod Action:
Full Forfeitures, explicit concessions, competitions, truisms, and comedy (even if facetious) are not eligible for moderation (barring certain exceptions)
This is one of those exceptions... Generally this is enacted for simple mistakes (such as a concession or FF, but the voter mistakingly voted for the wrong side)
**************************************************