Regarding your preamble:
1. Restating the format seems a waste.
2. You did better than anything the quote tool would have done (I'm a firm believer in formatting quotes, but that tool usually just makes things harder to read).
I only skimmed over the rest (wouldn't be fair to your opponent to give your case a more in depth reading of yours when his is not available to do likewise). It looks good, touches on many of the main points to be expected, putting a .edu paper near the start was wise and the other sources seemed fine (they can be mitigated if their bias is brought up, but that doesn't change their factual information unless their bias is proven to be overwhelming enough to cross into propaganda).
Nemiroff,
You can probably still pull the point off just fine.
A good benchmark I look at, is if the words seem too absurd to be believed by the person stating them. As a hilarious example, the majority of this debate: https://www.debateart.com/debates/866/fetuses-as-a-replacement-for-the-usd
My statement that he was engaging in sarcasm is an assumption, but one grounded in him not seeming to be insane elsewhere on this site. So I firmly believe he was saying "lazy" in jest, not expecting anyone to ever fill the entire universe with repeating decimal points. Were someone to hypothetically do so, there would be no room left for the existence of 1.00000...., all that would be left is 0.99999....
Writing A Strong Resolution:
The topic is usually synonymous with resolution (if not, clarify in the detailed description).
Be precise to the debate you wish to have, and ideally make it a single clause statement.
If a resolution contains multiple clauses, pro has not met BoP until each are supported.
If the clauses would support each other, pick one for the resolution, and use the other(s) as supporting contentions.
The difficulty in proving the resolution ties both to the topic, and any qualifier statements included within the resolution. Absolutes (words like "always" and "never") are most hard to prove, complete uncertainties (words like "maybe" and "possible") are least hard to prove.
Saw you reference a vote here in a debate, and just to be clear, you know that was sarcasm right?
>>If PRO wasn't so lazy and instead took the time the fill the known universe with repeating nines it would be apparent to everybody that the integer 1 is quite different from the infinitely inexpressible .9999....
>Oromagi insisted that my claim was incorrect and that he could have done a better job (i disagree as my claim is a clear cut fact), but still voted for me based on the merit of my arguments.
CVB are not really allowed. If you have a problem with any vote (even mine, as it was very concise; and if anyone has a complaint, I am happy to lengthen it) just report them... You can in addition to reporting, post a message tagging the voter and the vote moderators (Bsh1, Ramshutu, and virtuoso) with a reason why you question the validity of the vote (as I just demonstrated on one of your votes on another debate).
Death,
Your argument point is very short on detail. This could be written of literally any debate: "providing more convincing rebuttals and points." You should list at least your favorite point and why the defense against it failed.
---RFD (1 of 6)---
Let Firing Sqaud = FS, Nitrogen asphyxiation = NA, and Lethal Injection = LI
I should address a couple things about me before proceeding into such a detailed debate: I am no expert on gases or being shot; I am rather fearful of them both.
Gist:
My one problem with this debate is that both methods would be better than LI is a given.
Before R3 I thought this was going to be a fairly straight forward victory for con, but then pro gained some real ground there on the likelihood of poor application of NA. The counter likelihood said what I had just read a minute ago did not occur, which was con kind of shooting himself in the foot if you’ll pardon the execution pun.
1. Pain multiplied by time in pain
I’m not a sadist, so I assume them having any pain and suffering to be a negative thing about any method. I should also clarify that I can separate physical pain from mental anguish. Any method at all suffers... I’ll let con explain it: “the anticipation of pain, by itself, inspires a great deal of dread that can overwhelm even extreme pain.” For every method they will struggle, FS does have a slight edge in that with their struggles not causing any prolonged experience as seen with every other method.
FS: once initiated it takes 35.4 seconds, and apparently feels like someone chucked a pebble at them (I am thinking of this as not an underhanded toss, but some serious speed to a bare chest... not negligible, but only a fraction what would be expected in comparison to the wound). If botched (why the heck aim at someone’s hip?) and not corrected several minutes (of course long enough for serious pain to occur), but assuming correction, two minutes at most.
NA: Ideally a couple of breaths, but they might fight against it delaying this. If misapplied, they might pass out and be able to have it re-administered without increased suffering, or suffer hypoxia which is non-ideal but not awful.
Neither method suffers the problems of LI in that they might need to be given lengthy medical attention and the execution re-administered later, both can simply be applied a second time.
The pain of those who carry out the executions is a valid factor (the suicide example was really sad), which I am unsure how it would greatly improve from any method (31% of them with PTSD under LI, this seems very likely to carry over to NA and FS, but we don’t know if the rates would vary... these things can be weird and hard to predict). As pro countered, the related PTSD source seemed to indicate any exposure to death or exposure to people talking about exposure to death, rather than the sight of blood playing any role. This subpoint to pain became more against the death penalty in general (yes aimed at FS, but if it carried the day, it would be against all executions).
2. Affordability
FS hedges ahead on this, being 1/58th the cost. There will of course be unrealized costs to any method. Plus somehow contractors would probably inflate things massively as if they were buying paper from Dunder Mifflin Inc., but for comparison I will trust the liberal leaning estimates.
FS: Up to a setup cost of $5,318.35, plus $6.75 per execution. (I am not seeing any mention of how much it would cost to establish the firing range or whatever, but I trust there would need to be one established; but it would be cheaper than whatever airlock type room is used for gassing someone)
NA: Up to a setup cost of $300,000 (if assuming the gas can’t be allowed to escape and harm anyone else; late in the debate con rejected the need for such control, but even the final round source did not verify that that the gas is safe, rather I remember it being explained that two breaths is all it takes to knock someone out, and if sustained it will kill), and about $90 per execution (earlier I had guessed a few grand, so this is a massive improvement... Also, the source for the gas price doesn’t work without creating an account with them, but I’ll trust con’s estimate).
3. Reliability
FS has a proven track record, but there are outlier cases of it being botched to the detriment of the condemned. Con oddly says it was never botched, shortly after pointing out a case where they shot someone in the hip and he took several minutes to die (these types of errors slip into debates, it’s not a big deal, but I consider it worth acknowledging). ... So, an interesting point of contention came up here, “Assuming that this simple procedure is somehow botched, lungs, major arteries, and veins are directly around the outside the heart. They will die quickly, even assuming that the shots missed their mark.” Was almost immediately said to “not acknowledge the possibility that the use of a FS may not result in an individual being shot in the heart.” Pro added on to the pre-rebuttal a reminder of the number of shots which would all need to miss the center of mass for it to be problematic.
NA is unproven, but initially seems like it would do at least as well as the 93% success of LI. The problems of early errors raised by pro seem valid and likely, as are accidents with any potential gas escape only needing a breath or two to harm someone. This is compounded by the single executioner who need but error once to cause a botched execution (vs. four for FS).
“guinea pigs” was a well-used line of rhetoric from both sides.
4. Abundance
FS is very easy to attain, if not for red tape it would be assumed already available.
NA seems easy to attain. Con defends this later, but I did not find pro’s argument against access convincing enough to make serious note (as much as it’s a problem for LI, but we all agree that one isn’t under serious consideration).
5. Training
FS has clear roads on this one, calling for personnel already on hand and trained to do the deed (likely some complications from psych evals in case of PTSD as was raised back in point 1).
NA either needs outside professionals to be brought in for the deed, or else risk a far greater error rate if the guards are trusted to know how to operate things outside their skill set safely.
Let’s be honest, both are going to require the presence of medical professionals. Even a little thing like declaring time of death, isn’t something that will be passed off to any rando.
Arguments: pro, but if any point other than argument would be within the tied range
See above review of key points. Part of me wants to vote this a tie, in opposition to any death penalty, particularly in consideration to the PTSD point (which I agree those involved will be pretty sure of their level of contribution, even if onlookers are not); however if one had to be done, I would go with FS. I was kind of left fearful of the gases with NA, and the described implementation not requiring professionals and double checks to make sure it is done right. Were it carried out for as long as FS has been, I would trust people would work out the problems, but it is currently not the superior method. The reliability and safety of FS currently favor it, it even has four built in chances for success at every execution.
I did not give any weight to the public sentiment angle. The debaters could go in a circle on what the public sentiment might come to want, but I consider the priority to be the condemned; with a secondary on those who choose to be directly involved; and third to actual bystanders.
Sources: tied range
Both sides did really well, and source disputes were present in a healthy and not one sided way. A note of extra credit goes to con for using continuous numbering.
S&G: tied
Organization could have been slightly better (I like the heading text to carry over, but this is my preference, and I was able to follow everything just fine in this case due to clear context and numbering)
Welcome to the site, and nice job on the formatting! ... You don't really need it, but it might teach you a couple tricks: http://tiny.cc/DebateArt
My biggest argument feedback would be use a couple more sources. Second would be rather than in later rounds listing the numbered responses to the new stuff, list the same numbers and count forward into any new arguments. Your old ones can just be "My opponent dropped this, extend."
Thanks. I had seen the earlier one (I was not assuming a gas leak of it would make people think they were on fire or anything painful), and had not read the final round (going to skim over everything again, read the conclusions, then vote).
Drogon, first welcome to the site... Unfortunately your vote will be deleted by the admins, for falling short of the standards we use. It's not a big deal, enjoy the site, take part in a couple debates, and then when you've seen what you like and hate in other votes, you should be able to start crafting your own (in short, they should give feedback to the debaters on their arguments).
Would you mind pointing out where in your case is any talk of the safety of the gas in question when not being intentionally administered at a quantity to kill? A one sentence quote would be perfect, and from there I can find and re-read the relevant section.
So on the previous site I served on the Vote Review Board, which gave me a very good eye for types of misconduct. Now if anything feels fishy, I copy a snippet or two of their case into Google, and more often then not it turns out they stole the work.
The big giveaways are unusual formatting or word choice, but even a shift in punctuation can do it.
On S&G, I only penalize it if two conditions are met: 1 it was enough of a distraction from the debate, and 2 that I'm in the mood to put in the effort.
Guys, we really need to find the identity of the ghost voter Super Alpha Wolf was warning us about (https://www.debateart.com/debates/1386/comment_links/20324). The one whom says Super Alpha Wolf had no sources, but the vote can only be seen by someone with his amazing heightened senses.
I know I was moved by Super Alpha Wolf's "five sources and the promise that more will come later..." Thankfully those sources he's going to use later, prevent any part of his case being dismissed on grounds of "any and all things raised without sourcing can be disregarded without them." Those aliens on Mars we need to reach, his secret source which proves their existence must be so compelling that voters should just give him the source point in the hope that it will get him to share it.
/Satire
Before I go through reading this one, I should ask if there's any chance you two are going to redo it? It could be done via copying the current content, removing the waived round, and possibly expanding outward if you two feel there was more back and forth needed. All commentators could then be tagged to notify them where the debate moved.
On the legality angle, it would make a lot of sense to debate the topic on moral reasons a couple times, and then maybe debate on legal grounds with the well defended morals as the assumed basis.
---RFD---
Interpreting the resolution:
The description clarifies this is left vs right wing.
Gist:
Debate got trolled... If not just trolling, even when asked, con could not name even a second conservative president to support his case.
1. Stock Market: Pro
Pro uses evidence (Forbes) to show better stock market growth.
2. Blue States: Pro
Pro asserts that blue states generate most of the nation’s wealth.
Con counters that they are desirable to homeless people, so it’s impossible that they’re wealthier...
3. God: WTF?
Con asserts that all liberals have lost their eyesight due to intervention of a malevolent demon. The implication being that if you turn liberal, you lose your eyesight, and too many people suffering this would be bad for the economy.
4. Trump: Pro
Con shows that manufacturing jobs had a much faster growth rate under Trump than Obama. Then he wondered off topic to things that have nothing to do with the measurement (such as people being gullible).
Pro counters that this is anecdotal, and that the averages need to be looked at. And that further the trend of decreasing unemployment began under Obama.
5. Obama: Pro
Con showed that the deficient nearly doubled under Obama, and claims this is the worst growth rate it has ever had (side note: Reagan). Pro counters that analysis worry Trump is creating double the deficit growth as Obama attained in 8 years (this highlights the problem of singling out a sitting president, as their impacts have not concluded).
Con highlights some decisions he dislikes for an emotional appeal. He goes so far as to claim more than 50% of tax dollars were given away to foreign interests as gifts. Pro proves that con was lying, with a source which shows foreign aid was only 1.2% of the budget.
---
Arguments: Pro
See above review of key points.
Sources: Pro
Giving this in large part for con being caught directly in multiple intentional lies to which his evidence did not support. It poisons the well on the rest of his evidence, to make no one be able to take his case seriously. Pro’s Council on Foreign Relation’s source was a highlight, which proved this problem.
Some of con’s sources even hurt his case, like when he sought to prove how much more desirable to live in blue states are (this hurt it even before pro pointed out the problem).
From con, I do appreciate the inclusion of Neon Cat, even if no liberal is able to see it (since they’re all apparently blind).
S&G: tied
Con has improved his legibility. Leaning pro, but I could understand what con was trying to say.
---RFD---
Interpreting the resolution:
As per the description, Theism vs Atheism shall be measured for some measurement of Faith.
Gist:
Con’s case that it takes less faith to believe in less complexity, won against the moving the goalpost and claims that we should believe in God, but not in gods, but we can’t define God if it’s inconvenient right now but should just believe unquestionably instead... (pro I am not trying to be as rude as that might seem, but you repeatedly hamstrung yourself)
1. There are no good reasons for Atheism
Pro offers something about magic and magicians.
Con offers that it’s fallacious to just declare knowledge of a prior cause and declare that it must not have in turned have a cause, and worse than assuming intent good will and all that takes more faith than to not assume any such traits to which there is no evidence. Con gives a like bullet point comparison, to which pro asserts that theism has zero assumptions at all (which is laughable... arguing both sets require faith is valid, as anyone sane puts a little faith in the ground under their feet; but to claim without support that theists have zero faith is just... weird fo
2. There is good reason for Theism
Pro offers something about today doesn’t exist, or only exists because of faith in a didit fallacy. And yes, I understand the paradox, but not how it is supposed to relate to reality or this debate. He next explains about the universe having a start due to the big bang, making the previous point useless, rendering this section something of a non-sequitur.
Con runs a Kritik on the KCA, to which Pro rejects defining God in any way outside the didit fallacy (on this I would have accepted his lack of definition were it atheism vs agnosticism, but not for theism).
3. Ramshutus Razor
(calling this out for high value...)
A very fun exploration of flawed design if there was a designer, thus giving reason to disbelieve in one (right down to showing that logically if God exists, God intentionally set things up to lead to the conclusion he does not exist).
4. Flat earth
LMAO! ... Okay was not going to include this, but it ended up re-explaining the ‘necessity’ angle pretty well.
---
Arguments: con
See above review of key points.
Sources: con
Broken links greatly hurt pro. I can’t imagine why he added random spaces in the middle of them. Pro further insisting it would be “illogical” to believe the word of 33 physicists, was one of the worst challenges to a source I have seen. ... Without those, I would leave sources tied.
Pro selected good enough sources they could be recycled between contentions; such as the LiveScience article already mentioned for the blunder against it, which was levered against the KCA and showed how weird the universe is even to those who understand it best, making a God require a greater faith quotient for having apparently decided to make things those ways.
Conduct: con
Pro missed two weeks of the debate...
---RFD---
Interpreting the resolution:
The resolution assumes that both will be colonized (permanent habitats), with a no K rule. Split BoP (meaning if neither, or both at the same time, then a tie).
Gist:
Con drops too much of pro’s case to have a prayer. He tries to move the goalpost to outright terraforming, but that’s outside the scope of this first colony debate.
1. Proximity
The reliability of orbit and a host of other things helps the moon. Con tried a discourse Kritik on this (more directly to the related visibility point), but it did not go anywhere.
2. Spaceport
Sounds very useful, particularly the resources. Con tried to counter with contradicting assertions “that there’s nothing there,” and that we can’t mine resources from where we live (which if true would prevent any permanent self-sustaining colony anywhere...).
3. Weather
I thought Mars would come ahead on this, but pro explained how very weak the atmosphere on Mars is, and the whole life angle being dangerous territory. Knowing what we’re getting into, for a first trial, is how things are done, you don’t just build a party rocket at hope for the best.
4. Current State
The moon already has funding and planning underway.
5. Tech
We can semi-reliably get people to the moon, not so much for Mars. Con counters by claiming we only ever went to the moon once...
6. Visibility
Not the strongest point, more just an extension of proximity. It got stronger with factors from the next one, since if it fails horribly, we will be able to observe and learn.
7. Training
Pro pulled everything together to make it seem truly vital to have practice surviving out there, but also a staging area to reach any other planet. This seemed complained about instead of countered.
8. Aliens
Con makes the case that we need to invade mars to fight the Martians who are conceivably right now planning an invasion, and he promises there will be sources to prove this...
Pro uses logic to flip this with implicit safety concerns.
9. Riots
Con believes riots will happen if the moon landing happened...
---
Arguments:
See above review of key points.
Sources:
I was going to leave this tied due to my strong dislike of them being posted outside debate rounds (turned out to be less of a problem than anticipated, due to working links being in the rounds), but con promised too many sources to which he failed to deliver, which prevents casual dismissal of this area as being within the tied range.
Pro wins this considerably less than the difference in distances under comparison, but easily by the distance between the earth and the moon itself. A well-researched layered case, vs five sources and the promise that more will come later...
A really good one from pro was Nasa’s one on Solar Conjunction, which for a first attempt it would seem incredibly foolish to not have at least stable communication lines. Space’s one on how our blood would boil on mars (and pro’s understanding that it would apply on the moon), was very well leveraged to nullify the related part of the opposition.
I've reported your vote to the moderation team. The problem with it is that it could have been written based solely on the title of the debate, not addressing any of the nuance.
(not bothering to tag mods in this, as the problem similarly lacks any nuance)
Your votes are improving at a good rate. I do not disagree with the allotment, merely the detail level. I'd estimate one more paragraph to review what you consider the core argument would fix it (the moderation team may suggest further refinement beyond that).
Quick bit of advice about voting: Other than arguments, only award points for overwhelming leads. S&G for example, the errors should be distracting from the arguments, not a typo or two which were you debating you would want any reasonable person to forgive.
I will second Club on the conduct award. He hurt his arguments with waiving rounds, but he did not make anyone wait the full time allotment of a forfeiture.
I fully support you on making arguments a tie. Some people hate it, but it's the default setting for a reason. If you are uncertain who should win, no harm is inflicted by saying that.
I suggest you two have a debate about the dementia angle sometime. If such is done, it might be a good idea to address him by an alibi within the debate rounds, to lower the amount emotional bias plays into voting.
This debate strongly feels like at least one school paper was being drafted. By the end of round one I had lost all interest in the lethal injection side that no one would argue in favor of anyway.
I strongly assumed if any official ruling was made, it would just be that this debate is non-moderated due to the catch-22 (https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/2534/post_links/112461). Hence, while I respected TheAthiest's work enough to vote in his favor due to the content of the debate, I did not report any votes which did otherwise.
As per the original vote... Since you think the quoted bit under S&G ("you are splitting hairs , literally!") was neither incoherent nor incomprehensible, would you please explain its connection to the concepts under discussion in this debate? To me it is self evidently not. Bare in mind, this is the entirety of a round I've copy/pasted.
---RFD 1 of 1---
Gist:
Let me be blunt: Con is correct but tried to treat this as a free win. Pro took the material and argued the uphill battle against a near truism.
1. Vaping is not good, but it certainly is not as bad for you
This was a comparison of harms, which con rejects because they’re harms. Pro’s preamble already addressed this, and to not treat this debate as a dishonest truism I must entertain that vaping (while harmful) can be a net improvement to a person who would otherwise smoke (or for their shared example, sleep in in a rats nest hotel or one that is just kinda bad... bad is better than horrible).
Con goes for the ad infinitum reply of “Just because it's better doesn't mean it's good.”
---RFD 2 of 3---
2. Vaping serves a greater, good willed purposed
Pro introduces some good things about it, and con counters with some cases of illness (either the CDC report itself, or a better source on it should have been used. The one in question opens with a quick video explaining it, and talks about a tv program called Vaporized instead of the CDC report).
Pro defends with comparisons to tobacco and meth; which could have been handled a little better with some hard numbers on the rates of injuries (I do not actually buy the alternative to meth argument).
Con’s reply of: “can you really prove it's better?” was insufficient.
3. Any kind of unorthodox stress relief mechanism...
Con drops this in an ugly way (see conduct).
4. Vaping serves as an ulterior method of quitting smoking
Here is where con did best, showing vaping as a gateway drug leading to increased smoking (sources should have been integrated into an argument, not just tossed out afterward). The source revealed a 6.7% increase (not a sudden 27% out of nowhere... which that number as part of the debate was). I agree with pro that con really should have targeted the advertisements targeted at teens (even R2 would have still been fine...) Pro showed at 8% increased success in quitting smoking in adults (a much larger demographic than teens...), which is a massive improvement (10% shooting up to 18% is an 1.8 magnitude improvement, vs the 1.33 harmed in teens).
Bonus points to this debate for irony.
Asking for feedback is always allowed.
Regarding your preamble:
1. Restating the format seems a waste.
2. You did better than anything the quote tool would have done (I'm a firm believer in formatting quotes, but that tool usually just makes things harder to read).
I only skimmed over the rest (wouldn't be fair to your opponent to give your case a more in depth reading of yours when his is not available to do likewise). It looks good, touches on many of the main points to be expected, putting a .edu paper near the start was wise and the other sources seemed fine (they can be mitigated if their bias is brought up, but that doesn't change their factual information unless their bias is proven to be overwhelming enough to cross into propaganda).
Oromagi,
Thanks for clarifying.
Nemiroff,
You can probably still pull the point off just fine.
A good benchmark I look at, is if the words seem too absurd to be believed by the person stating them. As a hilarious example, the majority of this debate: https://www.debateart.com/debates/866/fetuses-as-a-replacement-for-the-usd
My statement that he was engaging in sarcasm is an assumption, but one grounded in him not seeming to be insane elsewhere on this site. So I firmly believe he was saying "lazy" in jest, not expecting anyone to ever fill the entire universe with repeating decimal points. Were someone to hypothetically do so, there would be no room left for the existence of 1.00000...., all that would be left is 0.99999....
Writing A Strong Resolution:
The topic is usually synonymous with resolution (if not, clarify in the detailed description).
Be precise to the debate you wish to have, and ideally make it a single clause statement.
If a resolution contains multiple clauses, pro has not met BoP until each are supported.
If the clauses would support each other, pick one for the resolution, and use the other(s) as supporting contentions.
The difficulty in proving the resolution ties both to the topic, and any qualifier statements included within the resolution. Absolutes (words like "always" and "never") are most hard to prove, complete uncertainties (words like "maybe" and "possible") are least hard to prove.
Saw you reference a vote here in a debate, and just to be clear, you know that was sarcasm right?
>>If PRO wasn't so lazy and instead took the time the fill the known universe with repeating nines it would be apparent to everybody that the integer 1 is quite different from the infinitely inexpressible .9999....
>Oromagi insisted that my claim was incorrect and that he could have done a better job (i disagree as my claim is a clear cut fact), but still voted for me based on the merit of my arguments.
This is a really good debate which could do with a tie breaking vote (in either direction).
Just click report vote, and/or tag the moderators (virt., Ram, and Bsh1) in a comment.
CVB are not really allowed. If you have a problem with any vote (even mine, as it was very concise; and if anyone has a complaint, I am happy to lengthen it) just report them... You can in addition to reporting, post a message tagging the voter and the vote moderators (Bsh1, Ramshutu, and virtuoso) with a reason why you question the validity of the vote (as I just demonstrated on one of your votes on another debate).
Death,
Your argument point is very short on detail. This could be written of literally any debate: "providing more convincing rebuttals and points." You should list at least your favorite point and why the defense against it failed.
---RFD (1 of 6)---
Let Firing Sqaud = FS, Nitrogen asphyxiation = NA, and Lethal Injection = LI
I should address a couple things about me before proceeding into such a detailed debate: I am no expert on gases or being shot; I am rather fearful of them both.
Gist:
My one problem with this debate is that both methods would be better than LI is a given.
Before R3 I thought this was going to be a fairly straight forward victory for con, but then pro gained some real ground there on the likelihood of poor application of NA. The counter likelihood said what I had just read a minute ago did not occur, which was con kind of shooting himself in the foot if you’ll pardon the execution pun.
1. Pain multiplied by time in pain
I’m not a sadist, so I assume them having any pain and suffering to be a negative thing about any method. I should also clarify that I can separate physical pain from mental anguish. Any method at all suffers... I’ll let con explain it: “the anticipation of pain, by itself, inspires a great deal of dread that can overwhelm even extreme pain.” For every method they will struggle, FS does have a slight edge in that with their struggles not causing any prolonged experience as seen with every other method.
FS: once initiated it takes 35.4 seconds, and apparently feels like someone chucked a pebble at them (I am thinking of this as not an underhanded toss, but some serious speed to a bare chest... not negligible, but only a fraction what would be expected in comparison to the wound). If botched (why the heck aim at someone’s hip?) and not corrected several minutes (of course long enough for serious pain to occur), but assuming correction, two minutes at most.
NA: Ideally a couple of breaths, but they might fight against it delaying this. If misapplied, they might pass out and be able to have it re-administered without increased suffering, or suffer hypoxia which is non-ideal but not awful.
Neither method suffers the problems of LI in that they might need to be given lengthy medical attention and the execution re-administered later, both can simply be applied a second time.
The pain of those who carry out the executions is a valid factor (the suicide example was really sad), which I am unsure how it would greatly improve from any method (31% of them with PTSD under LI, this seems very likely to carry over to NA and FS, but we don’t know if the rates would vary... these things can be weird and hard to predict). As pro countered, the related PTSD source seemed to indicate any exposure to death or exposure to people talking about exposure to death, rather than the sight of blood playing any role. This subpoint to pain became more against the death penalty in general (yes aimed at FS, but if it carried the day, it would be against all executions).
2. Affordability
FS hedges ahead on this, being 1/58th the cost. There will of course be unrealized costs to any method. Plus somehow contractors would probably inflate things massively as if they were buying paper from Dunder Mifflin Inc., but for comparison I will trust the liberal leaning estimates.
FS: Up to a setup cost of $5,318.35, plus $6.75 per execution. (I am not seeing any mention of how much it would cost to establish the firing range or whatever, but I trust there would need to be one established; but it would be cheaper than whatever airlock type room is used for gassing someone)
NA: Up to a setup cost of $300,000 (if assuming the gas can’t be allowed to escape and harm anyone else; late in the debate con rejected the need for such control, but even the final round source did not verify that that the gas is safe, rather I remember it being explained that two breaths is all it takes to knock someone out, and if sustained it will kill), and about $90 per execution (earlier I had guessed a few grand, so this is a massive improvement... Also, the source for the gas price doesn’t work without creating an account with them, but I’ll trust con’s estimate).
LI: Unknown setup, plus $1,300 per execution.
3. Reliability
FS has a proven track record, but there are outlier cases of it being botched to the detriment of the condemned. Con oddly says it was never botched, shortly after pointing out a case where they shot someone in the hip and he took several minutes to die (these types of errors slip into debates, it’s not a big deal, but I consider it worth acknowledging). ... So, an interesting point of contention came up here, “Assuming that this simple procedure is somehow botched, lungs, major arteries, and veins are directly around the outside the heart. They will die quickly, even assuming that the shots missed their mark.” Was almost immediately said to “not acknowledge the possibility that the use of a FS may not result in an individual being shot in the heart.” Pro added on to the pre-rebuttal a reminder of the number of shots which would all need to miss the center of mass for it to be problematic.
NA is unproven, but initially seems like it would do at least as well as the 93% success of LI. The problems of early errors raised by pro seem valid and likely, as are accidents with any potential gas escape only needing a breath or two to harm someone. This is compounded by the single executioner who need but error once to cause a botched execution (vs. four for FS).
“guinea pigs” was a well-used line of rhetoric from both sides.
4. Abundance
FS is very easy to attain, if not for red tape it would be assumed already available.
NA seems easy to attain. Con defends this later, but I did not find pro’s argument against access convincing enough to make serious note (as much as it’s a problem for LI, but we all agree that one isn’t under serious consideration).
5. Training
FS has clear roads on this one, calling for personnel already on hand and trained to do the deed (likely some complications from psych evals in case of PTSD as was raised back in point 1).
NA either needs outside professionals to be brought in for the deed, or else risk a far greater error rate if the guards are trusted to know how to operate things outside their skill set safely.
Let’s be honest, both are going to require the presence of medical professionals. Even a little thing like declaring time of death, isn’t something that will be passed off to any rando.
---
Arguments: pro, but if any point other than argument would be within the tied range
See above review of key points. Part of me wants to vote this a tie, in opposition to any death penalty, particularly in consideration to the PTSD point (which I agree those involved will be pretty sure of their level of contribution, even if onlookers are not); however if one had to be done, I would go with FS. I was kind of left fearful of the gases with NA, and the described implementation not requiring professionals and double checks to make sure it is done right. Were it carried out for as long as FS has been, I would trust people would work out the problems, but it is currently not the superior method. The reliability and safety of FS currently favor it, it even has four built in chances for success at every execution.
I did not give any weight to the public sentiment angle. The debaters could go in a circle on what the public sentiment might come to want, but I consider the priority to be the condemned; with a secondary on those who choose to be directly involved; and third to actual bystanders.
Sources: tied range
Both sides did really well, and source disputes were present in a healthy and not one sided way. A note of extra credit goes to con for using continuous numbering.
S&G: tied
Organization could have been slightly better (I like the heading text to carry over, but this is my preference, and I was able to follow everything just fine in this case due to clear context and numbering)
Conduct: tied
Neither degraded themselves.
Poor drones, no one serves their kind here...
Thank you all for voting!
IMO that someone is repeatedly trying to use this as a platform to spread disinformation, does not excuse it, rather it compounds the problem.
Bettering yourself should always take priority over a hobby like this.
Nice job. I suggest opening this one up again for a higher tier opponent (set the minimum rating to 1500...).
Welcome to the site, and nice job on the formatting! ... You don't really need it, but it might teach you a couple tricks: http://tiny.cc/DebateArt
My biggest argument feedback would be use a couple more sources. Second would be rather than in later rounds listing the numbered responses to the new stuff, list the same numbers and count forward into any new arguments. Your old ones can just be "My opponent dropped this, extend."
Thanks. I had seen the earlier one (I was not assuming a gas leak of it would make people think they were on fire or anything painful), and had not read the final round (going to skim over everything again, read the conclusions, then vote).
This might be the most I've seen fit into 10K.
Drogon, first welcome to the site... Unfortunately your vote will be deleted by the admins, for falling short of the standards we use. It's not a big deal, enjoy the site, take part in a couple debates, and then when you've seen what you like and hate in other votes, you should be able to start crafting your own (in short, they should give feedback to the debaters on their arguments).
Troll debates can get into some ugly territory, but this debate seems to be intended to spread hate speech.
Would you mind pointing out where in your case is any talk of the safety of the gas in question when not being intentionally administered at a quantity to kill? A one sentence quote would be perfect, and from there I can find and re-read the relevant section.
I am very glad to hear this debate will be getting proper closure.
So on the previous site I served on the Vote Review Board, which gave me a very good eye for types of misconduct. Now if anything feels fishy, I copy a snippet or two of their case into Google, and more often then not it turns out they stole the work.
The big giveaways are unusual formatting or word choice, but even a shift in punctuation can do it.
On S&G, I only penalize it if two conditions are met: 1 it was enough of a distraction from the debate, and 2 that I'm in the mood to put in the effort.
Guys, we really need to find the identity of the ghost voter Super Alpha Wolf was warning us about (https://www.debateart.com/debates/1386/comment_links/20324). The one whom says Super Alpha Wolf had no sources, but the vote can only be seen by someone with his amazing heightened senses.
I know I was moved by Super Alpha Wolf's "five sources and the promise that more will come later..." Thankfully those sources he's going to use later, prevent any part of his case being dismissed on grounds of "any and all things raised without sourcing can be disregarded without them." Those aliens on Mars we need to reach, his secret source which proves their existence must be so compelling that voters should just give him the source point in the hope that it will get him to share it.
/Satire
Before I go through reading this one, I should ask if there's any chance you two are going to redo it? It could be done via copying the current content, removing the waived round, and possibly expanding outward if you two feel there was more back and forth needed. All commentators could then be tagged to notify them where the debate moved.
On the legality angle, it would make a lot of sense to debate the topic on moral reasons a couple times, and then maybe debate on legal grounds with the well defended morals as the assumed basis.
If Bill manages to use my suggested formatting in R2, I urge an S&G vote in his favor for the magnitude of improvement.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9qv8RSreIM
---RFD---
Interpreting the resolution:
The description clarifies this is left vs right wing.
Gist:
Debate got trolled... If not just trolling, even when asked, con could not name even a second conservative president to support his case.
1. Stock Market: Pro
Pro uses evidence (Forbes) to show better stock market growth.
2. Blue States: Pro
Pro asserts that blue states generate most of the nation’s wealth.
Con counters that they are desirable to homeless people, so it’s impossible that they’re wealthier...
3. God: WTF?
Con asserts that all liberals have lost their eyesight due to intervention of a malevolent demon. The implication being that if you turn liberal, you lose your eyesight, and too many people suffering this would be bad for the economy.
4. Trump: Pro
Con shows that manufacturing jobs had a much faster growth rate under Trump than Obama. Then he wondered off topic to things that have nothing to do with the measurement (such as people being gullible).
Pro counters that this is anecdotal, and that the averages need to be looked at. And that further the trend of decreasing unemployment began under Obama.
5. Obama: Pro
Con showed that the deficient nearly doubled under Obama, and claims this is the worst growth rate it has ever had (side note: Reagan). Pro counters that analysis worry Trump is creating double the deficit growth as Obama attained in 8 years (this highlights the problem of singling out a sitting president, as their impacts have not concluded).
Con highlights some decisions he dislikes for an emotional appeal. He goes so far as to claim more than 50% of tax dollars were given away to foreign interests as gifts. Pro proves that con was lying, with a source which shows foreign aid was only 1.2% of the budget.
---
Arguments: Pro
See above review of key points.
Sources: Pro
Giving this in large part for con being caught directly in multiple intentional lies to which his evidence did not support. It poisons the well on the rest of his evidence, to make no one be able to take his case seriously. Pro’s Council on Foreign Relation’s source was a highlight, which proved this problem.
Some of con’s sources even hurt his case, like when he sought to prove how much more desirable to live in blue states are (this hurt it even before pro pointed out the problem).
From con, I do appreciate the inclusion of Neon Cat, even if no liberal is able to see it (since they’re all apparently blind).
S&G: tied
Con has improved his legibility. Leaning pro, but I could understand what con was trying to say.
Conduct: tied
Forfeiture vs blatant lies...
---RFD---
Interpreting the resolution:
As per the description, Theism vs Atheism shall be measured for some measurement of Faith.
Gist:
Con’s case that it takes less faith to believe in less complexity, won against the moving the goalpost and claims that we should believe in God, but not in gods, but we can’t define God if it’s inconvenient right now but should just believe unquestionably instead... (pro I am not trying to be as rude as that might seem, but you repeatedly hamstrung yourself)
1. There are no good reasons for Atheism
Pro offers something about magic and magicians.
Con offers that it’s fallacious to just declare knowledge of a prior cause and declare that it must not have in turned have a cause, and worse than assuming intent good will and all that takes more faith than to not assume any such traits to which there is no evidence. Con gives a like bullet point comparison, to which pro asserts that theism has zero assumptions at all (which is laughable... arguing both sets require faith is valid, as anyone sane puts a little faith in the ground under their feet; but to claim without support that theists have zero faith is just... weird fo
2. There is good reason for Theism
Pro offers something about today doesn’t exist, or only exists because of faith in a didit fallacy. And yes, I understand the paradox, but not how it is supposed to relate to reality or this debate. He next explains about the universe having a start due to the big bang, making the previous point useless, rendering this section something of a non-sequitur.
Con runs a Kritik on the KCA, to which Pro rejects defining God in any way outside the didit fallacy (on this I would have accepted his lack of definition were it atheism vs agnosticism, but not for theism).
3. Ramshutus Razor
(calling this out for high value...)
A very fun exploration of flawed design if there was a designer, thus giving reason to disbelieve in one (right down to showing that logically if God exists, God intentionally set things up to lead to the conclusion he does not exist).
4. Flat earth
LMAO! ... Okay was not going to include this, but it ended up re-explaining the ‘necessity’ angle pretty well.
---
Arguments: con
See above review of key points.
Sources: con
Broken links greatly hurt pro. I can’t imagine why he added random spaces in the middle of them. Pro further insisting it would be “illogical” to believe the word of 33 physicists, was one of the worst challenges to a source I have seen. ... Without those, I would leave sources tied.
Pro selected good enough sources they could be recycled between contentions; such as the LiveScience article already mentioned for the blunder against it, which was levered against the KCA and showed how weird the universe is even to those who understand it best, making a God require a greater faith quotient for having apparently decided to make things those ways.
Conduct: con
Pro missed two weeks of the debate...
---RFD---
Interpreting the resolution:
The resolution assumes that both will be colonized (permanent habitats), with a no K rule. Split BoP (meaning if neither, or both at the same time, then a tie).
Gist:
Con drops too much of pro’s case to have a prayer. He tries to move the goalpost to outright terraforming, but that’s outside the scope of this first colony debate.
1. Proximity
The reliability of orbit and a host of other things helps the moon. Con tried a discourse Kritik on this (more directly to the related visibility point), but it did not go anywhere.
2. Spaceport
Sounds very useful, particularly the resources. Con tried to counter with contradicting assertions “that there’s nothing there,” and that we can’t mine resources from where we live (which if true would prevent any permanent self-sustaining colony anywhere...).
3. Weather
I thought Mars would come ahead on this, but pro explained how very weak the atmosphere on Mars is, and the whole life angle being dangerous territory. Knowing what we’re getting into, for a first trial, is how things are done, you don’t just build a party rocket at hope for the best.
4. Current State
The moon already has funding and planning underway.
5. Tech
We can semi-reliably get people to the moon, not so much for Mars. Con counters by claiming we only ever went to the moon once...
6. Visibility
Not the strongest point, more just an extension of proximity. It got stronger with factors from the next one, since if it fails horribly, we will be able to observe and learn.
7. Training
Pro pulled everything together to make it seem truly vital to have practice surviving out there, but also a staging area to reach any other planet. This seemed complained about instead of countered.
8. Aliens
Con makes the case that we need to invade mars to fight the Martians who are conceivably right now planning an invasion, and he promises there will be sources to prove this...
Pro uses logic to flip this with implicit safety concerns.
9. Riots
Con believes riots will happen if the moon landing happened...
---
Arguments:
See above review of key points.
Sources:
I was going to leave this tied due to my strong dislike of them being posted outside debate rounds (turned out to be less of a problem than anticipated, due to working links being in the rounds), but con promised too many sources to which he failed to deliver, which prevents casual dismissal of this area as being within the tied range.
Pro wins this considerably less than the difference in distances under comparison, but easily by the distance between the earth and the moon itself. A well-researched layered case, vs five sources and the promise that more will come later...
A really good one from pro was Nasa’s one on Solar Conjunction, which for a first attempt it would seem incredibly foolish to not have at least stable communication lines. Space’s one on how our blood would boil on mars (and pro’s understanding that it would apply on the moon), was very well leveraged to nullify the related part of the opposition.
I've reported your vote to the moderation team. The problem with it is that it could have been written based solely on the title of the debate, not addressing any of the nuance.
(not bothering to tag mods in this, as the problem similarly lacks any nuance)
If you’re interested in the topic, start a new debate on it. You could even recycle anything you already wrote for this one...
Your votes are improving at a good rate. I do not disagree with the allotment, merely the detail level. I'd estimate one more paragraph to review what you consider the core argument would fix it (the moderation team may suggest further refinement beyond that).
Quick bit of advice about voting: Other than arguments, only award points for overwhelming leads. S&G for example, the errors should be distracting from the arguments, not a typo or two which were you debating you would want any reasonable person to forgive.
I will second Club on the conduct award. He hurt his arguments with waiving rounds, but he did not make anyone wait the full time allotment of a forfeiture.
I fully support you on making arguments a tie. Some people hate it, but it's the default setting for a reason. If you are uncertain who should win, no harm is inflicted by saying that.
I suggest you two have a debate about the dementia angle sometime. If such is done, it might be a good idea to address him by an alibi within the debate rounds, to lower the amount emotional bias plays into voting.
This debate strongly feels like at least one school paper was being drafted. By the end of round one I had lost all interest in the lethal injection side that no one would argue in favor of anyway.
If no one votes on this, remind me and I will. I am hesitant due to having worked closely with Club on a previous debate for this resolution.
Awesome debate idea!
I strongly assumed if any official ruling was made, it would just be that this debate is non-moderated due to the catch-22 (https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/2534/post_links/112461). Hence, while I respected TheAthiest's work enough to vote in his favor due to the content of the debate, I did not report any votes which did otherwise.
I've re-voted, with an expansion on S&G.
As per the original vote... Since you think the quoted bit under S&G ("you are splitting hairs , literally!") was neither incoherent nor incomprehensible, would you please explain its connection to the concepts under discussion in this debate? To me it is self evidently not. Bare in mind, this is the entirety of a round I've copy/pasted.
---RFD 1 of 1---
Gist:
Let me be blunt: Con is correct but tried to treat this as a free win. Pro took the material and argued the uphill battle against a near truism.
1. Vaping is not good, but it certainly is not as bad for you
This was a comparison of harms, which con rejects because they’re harms. Pro’s preamble already addressed this, and to not treat this debate as a dishonest truism I must entertain that vaping (while harmful) can be a net improvement to a person who would otherwise smoke (or for their shared example, sleep in in a rats nest hotel or one that is just kinda bad... bad is better than horrible).
Con goes for the ad infinitum reply of “Just because it's better doesn't mean it's good.”
---RFD 2 of 3---
2. Vaping serves a greater, good willed purposed
Pro introduces some good things about it, and con counters with some cases of illness (either the CDC report itself, or a better source on it should have been used. The one in question opens with a quick video explaining it, and talks about a tv program called Vaporized instead of the CDC report).
Pro defends with comparisons to tobacco and meth; which could have been handled a little better with some hard numbers on the rates of injuries (I do not actually buy the alternative to meth argument).
Con’s reply of: “can you really prove it's better?” was insufficient.
3. Any kind of unorthodox stress relief mechanism...
Con drops this in an ugly way (see conduct).
4. Vaping serves as an ulterior method of quitting smoking
Here is where con did best, showing vaping as a gateway drug leading to increased smoking (sources should have been integrated into an argument, not just tossed out afterward). The source revealed a 6.7% increase (not a sudden 27% out of nowhere... which that number as part of the debate was). I agree with pro that con really should have targeted the advertisements targeted at teens (even R2 would have still been fine...) Pro showed at 8% increased success in quitting smoking in adults (a much larger demographic than teens...), which is a massive improvement (10% shooting up to 18% is an 1.8 magnitude improvement, vs the 1.33 harmed in teens).