---RFD 3 of 3---
Arguments: Pro
See above review of key points. While vaping is not pure good, it was shown to be a net benefit to the population. ... If the debate was to be some type of absolute, such should have been clarified in the description. The resolution was not written in any way to rule out vaping as a good alternative to worse things, and all resolutions should be written with some desired path of argumentation.
Sources: Pro
I was going to leave this tied at first glance, but seeing quality of sources raised as a repeated subpoint and them specifically asked for in the grading...
Pro integrated his sources into his arguments, such as Harvard showing the improved rates of quitting smoking vs use of other treatments, and of course quick informational bits from WebMD.
Con made such blunders as a dental website not talking about vaping (which had no place in a debate about it), and a snake oil sales site disliking WebMD (which ended up bolstering instead of harming WebMD, by bringing attention back to the quality of pro’s sources, while poisoning the well for con’s own side).
S&G: tied
Please leave contention numbers in place; and ideally leave the text for them in place in every round as bolded and underlined contention headings to make lines of thought easy to follow. Also, random use of ALL CAPS is to be avoided.
Conduct: Pro
Con’s “I like how you're changing the rules of the debate (sarcasm). Let me make this clear: YOUR JOB IS...” nets the loss of this point. Even if I bought his K of the debate he instigated, where was the magical rule violated? Never lie to the audience about debate content which is verifiably different or absent.
Pro on the other hand stayed respectful, even talking con through many different tactic options at his disposal in R1.
The chance to convince the audience was inside the debate rounds. Start a new debate if you feel you left out an argument winning point, and include it then.
Regarding Jesus' talk of thought crime and dismemberment for imagined sins... Dismissing his words as hyperbole he did not mean for anyone to take seriously, risks the coherence factor in following his teachings as a moral system. On the other hand (pun intended), following the letter of his word would be dangerous and stupid; about like if followers of Islam were to actually riot over cartoonist renderings.
Part of the problem is that in both cases, either are not simply one moral system, but each a spectrum with different focuses and interpretations (arguably they are both parts of the same spectrum within Abrahamic faith...).
OMG so my professor said that numbers are just a social construct, and that they like don't even like mean anything in the real world; and they're all like eurocentric anyway so we should um like reject them for like that and stuff. There was this this thing called the three-fifths compromise, which wrongly implied five is greater than three, but we know anyone who thinks that is evil. Our number system was culturally appropriated from the Arabs anyway, so like no one else is allowed to use them, and if you do you're like so totally a racist and a horrible person...
/Satire
Yes, they are inverted in my vote. The correct winner is still indicated in the actual allotment.
The addendum is full BoP would not be on the instigator. However the contender immediately gave evidence of harm done, at which point disproving the causal connection to that was the duty of the instigator.
Neal,
Welcome to the site. Your vote falls below the standards specified in the Code of Conduct (https://www.debateart.com/rules), additionally you're supposed to part in a couple debates before voting (it's kind of to ensure everyone has seen how fair voting is to be done, before they attempt it).
While I actually agree with you, I've reported your vote to the moderators for deletion. This isn't anything against you as a person, merely an attempt to uphold values of fairness debaters expect when their hard work is graded. For one such example, see my own vote on this debate: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1383/vote_links/3470 (notice that by default everything is a tie, but con actively came ahead on arguments so pulled that away from being a tie)
Related but not part of my decision:
The resolution is really hard to disprove, even if the outcome has no bearing on our lives. It’s similar to pointing out that altruists enjoy doing good things so aren’t true altruists; as if that would in any way corrupt the good work they do (it’d actually be pretty creepy if they hated helping other people, and did it full of resentment).
However it's fine for philosophy explore in these directions.
---RFD 1 of 2---
Gist:
Con drops a lot of points even stating he would defend his case against rebuttals in a future round that he did not publish. Even without this, pro was pulling ahead, perhaps due to con trying to rule of the complexity of the mind, which no theory I know of rejects. Were the resolution the MS is true, I would probably mark this a tie, as is, the argument that it is the most likely hypothesis (non-testable, so I won’t call it a theory) held up.
1. Epistemological Parsimony
The only certainty is that we exist, and Occam’s Razor says we should trust that certainty.
Con gives a tentative concession, “I am in agreement with Pro that the existence of the mind is a most certain and irrefutable fact. I also agree that ‘the external reality which is said to exist [without] the mind does not share the same certainty.’” But he goes on to assert that Agnosism is the most likely, we just can’t know... Which dances around the issue, rather than actually giving a hypothesis which can be likely or not (even if it is the best to follow, it’s not one that makes any claims on its likelihood of being true). Con moves on to trying to twist pro’s strongly supported case into a didit fallacy... It’s grasping at straws.
2. Monistic Idealism
Surprised to see ghosts referenced here (that they can’t touch stuff as evidence for the mind and body being distinct), but it was a nice break from the hard stuff...
Anyway, con challenges that this focuses on the mind-body problem, which MS rejects the existence of the second half. This was a strong point, which both missed (pro opted to respond to other parts, and con did not extend his best piece in light of that).
---RFD 2 of 2---
3. MS isn't consistent with observation
Between dreams and reality seeming to not be glitchy, con makes some solid points.
Pro counters with reminding us that con has not justified the need for these things to exist outside the mind. Then moves on to the bigger issue that (simplifying it down) we don’t remember our dreams or understand them if we do, but still have them.
Con basically says the mind being complex and layered defeats MS, but I missed how and why it would do this.
4. The existence of an objective reality is more likely
Short, but sweet; even using The Matrix as an additional alternative. Sadly, pre-refuted with the explanation of how Occam’s Razor applies to MS.
After that it basically morphs into repeated content from other argument lines.
---
Arguments: pro
See above review of key points.
Sources: pro
Con only started really trying to support his case with external evidence in his final round (as much as I enjoyed that Matrix clip),
S&G: tie
Not penalizing, but con’s interest shortage showed in R2 when he ceased applying special formatting to his case. Pro on the other hand offered a steady stream (but not spammed) of reliable sources giving extra insight to his case. Of note I should point to Spinoza’s Modal Metaphysics, which potentially offered a path to falsifiability. Additionally the article “Conscious and Unconscious Memory Systems” was leveraged very well to demonstrate layers of the subconscious, defending against attacks to the mind being limited only by the conscious.
I'm merrily reminded of a debate I had which stemmed from someone bad at math insisting 1-1=2, and claiming anyone (probably calculators as well) who disagrees are trolls:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/803/default-auto-loss-on-forfeit
---RFD 1 of 2---
Interpreting the resolution:
On balance Saudi Arabia (SA) is the most immoral or wicked country today.
Gist:
From various direct human rights abuses to outright sponsoring terrorism, SA was proven to be highly immoral and wicked. There was no counter case, con forfeited for over a month (60% of the debate I might add)...
Concession policy:
We may vote on the grounds of an explicit concession without considering arguments, but not an implicit one. Outside of the debate pro gave an implicit concession (it was grouped for the dozen debates he had ongoing, this one was not explicitly called out), so that were what we graded, the implicit concession of con choosing to drop every argument and make none for a whole month, is far closer to being an explicit concession than what pro did.
1. Human Rights
“Saudi Arabia is the seventh most authoritarian regime in the world”
“Women in Saudi Arabia are considered second-class citizens and are denied many of the freedoms granted to Saudi Arabian men.”
“Homosexuals are imprisoned and executed”
“required to be Muslim by law ... Atheists are considered terrorists through a royal decree” WTF?
“Jammal Kashoggi, who was murdered by Saudi agents in Turkey simply because of his opposition to the Saudi government.”
Etc., Etc.
2. Sponsors International Terrorism
“Saudi Arabia sponsored and continues to sponsor terrorist organizations such as the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, and Al-Nusra” And first random line my eyes went to on the source for that “includes links to 9/11 and the growing threat posed by ISIS.”
3. “Forfeited” & “conceded”
“Forfeited” was all con offered in refutation of the topical case (which is to say nothing). A Kritik that the debate should not apply was begun, but any reason to reject the debate content was missing from the appeal.
---RFD 2 of 2---
Arguments:
See above review of key points. I have just used skimmed quotes from pro, as they were powerful and completely non-contested (plus those were just the tip of the iceberg for these issues).
No other nations but SA were introduced into the debate for consideration, nor even the slightest defense of SA as not being purely evil (even a Kritik that evil doesn’t exist would have been better than this...).
Sources:
Sources alone are not arguments. Con offers a single link to a forum, and says he should win for that.
Pro on the other hand offered over a dozen insightful sources, backing up the claims he made about SA. The Wikipedia article on them beheading civilians and refusing to let their families have the bodies stands out (side note: disappearing people is considered a worse war crime than just murder, since the family will never know for certain if the person is really dead; or maybe off somewhere still being tortured), as does the Amnesty International report and the details it links to of the murder and dismemberment of Jamal Khashoggi at a Turkish embassy (side note: whose body they also won’t give up, even while alternating between claims of it was an accident or he’s alive and healthy).
Conduct:
Greater forfeiture from con (pro missed the end, but less than half forfeited vs over half forfeited is a pretty significant difference; even more so when a single missed round is grounds for a conduct award). The only main negative thing to say about pro, is him complaining about what happened “Don't you hate it when you decide to argue a very important topic, put a lot of work and research into it, and then a newcomer...” Which applies to why we have voting standards for any debate.
I got to say, your vote caused me to look on con's case again, and in retrospect there was a depth of soul revealed... So in retrospect:
Actually I quite liked it. I thought that some of the metaphysical imagery was really particularly effective. Interesting rhythmic devices too, which seemed to counterpoint the surrealism of the underlying metaphor of the humanity of the poet's compassionate soul, which contrives through the medium of the verse structure to sublimate this, transcend that, and come to terms with the fundamental dichotomies of the other, and one is left with a profound and vivid insight into whatever it was the poem was about!
Welcome to the site. Sadly your vote falls short of the standards, so will be deleted. I hope that does not discourage you, and that you soon begin taking part in debates.
In future please use contention headings throughout the debate (in essence, that R1 bolded text should stay bolded and recycled into each round). https://tiny.cc/DebateArt
---RFD (1 of 2)---
Gist:
This should not have been so hard to read...
1. Easier Communication (pro)
Faster than smoke signals and the like.
Challenged with the existence of various other means of communication (including cell phones and messenger apps... ugh). Talking also ranks 11th in how people use smartphones.
Some of the other communication means are contested on grounds of access restrictions, and in general not being computers.
2. Utility (pro)
List good things about smartphones in that they save space, and potentially money (Toys R Us example).
The money example is disputed, as the source cited non-smartphone games.
Pro continues by explaining that smartphones are small computers which can be carried in a pocket.
It goes on to what pro reduces to luddite complaints.
3. Saves Lives
When kidnapping people, you can get them to give you directions on their GPS (brilliant!).
Mitigated as the maps fall under the utility argument, not a special unique argument onto itself (plus the kidnapper was stupid, which the smartphone did not induce). ... Somehow con later tries to make this into a negative for exploiting stupidity.
4. Hurts Test Scores (con)
Korean student grades are inversely correlated to smart phone access. This was asserted to be unrelated to smartphones, but the greater time spent not using them...
5. Addiction (con)
Anyway both agree that addiction is a thing, that people can be better doesn’t change it, nor does fault matter. Con tries to relate it to the dangers of tobacco, pro explains the lack of lung cancer. Pro also shifts some of the problem to social media, which people will be addicted to with or without smartphones (it mitigates the problem, but smartphones still play a role in access).
---
Arguments:
See above review of key points. I’m leaning in pro’s favor on this, but I have stuff to go do, and am willing to admit my bias as a smartphone user; so will not award this without greater consideration to the cost/benefit. Thus, leaving it tied.
Sources:
These could have been integrated much better.
S&G:
Pro could have taken this had he not switched to a weird style in R2. Otherwise I would have penalized con for poor formatting that initially caused me to think he conceded (I don’t always read things in the normal order, so checking his responses to C1 before moving on to C2, the lack of anything to mark what was a quotation from pro made it look like con was listing how great smartphones are).
Conduct:
Trying to trick voters is inexcusable: “Yes it's stopping face-to-face interaction, thank you for conceding. The only things that use smartphones are humans, and if it does bad things to humans, it's bad. VOTERS: CONCESSION!” I think we’ve all been there, explaining as pro does: “Me defending smartphones, refuting your arguments, and backing it up with various sources is by no means a ‘concession’.” That he gave some ground, doesn’t mean he conceded the whole debate, as con repeatedly proclaims.
I should note here that pro had zero obligation to waive the last round.
If you're not illiterate, please restate the conclusion of that article? I'll give you a hint; following where your quote left off:
"...If this were the theory of abiogeneisis, and if it relied entirely on random chance, then yes, it would be impossible for life to form in this way. However, this is not the case.
"Abiogenesis was a long process with many small incremental steps, all governed by the non-random forces of Natural Selection and chemistry. The very first stages of abiogenesis were no more than simple self-replicating molecules, which might hardly have been called alive at all.
"For example, the simplest theorized self-replicating peptide is only 32 amino acids long. The probability of it forming randomly, in sequential trials, is approximately 1 in 10^40, which is much more likely than the 1 in 10^390 claim creationists often cite.
"Though, to be fair, 10^40 is still a very large number. It would still take an incredibly large number of sequential trials before the peptide would form. But remember that in the prebiotic oceans of the early Earth, there would be billions of trials taking place simultaneously as the oceans, rich in amino acids, were continuously churned by the tidal forces of the moon and the harsh weather conditions of the Earth..."
---RFD (1 of 2)---
Interpreting the resolution:
In the comment section pro clarified “condemn everyone of the perpetrator's race.”
Gist:
More an attempt at hiding behind ambiguity and moving the goalpost than a real debate.
1. “The White Male”
Major ambiguity problem; is it the one guy in particular, to which “Another white male” is unrelated? Or is it the group as the resolution seemed to indicate? Pro reminds us that this is broadly “32% of the population.” And very good use of MLK saying people should “not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” And backed it up with the idea that race doesn’t exist as defined by con.
2. Muslims
Pro uses data mining to conclude that if any group were to receive such a label, radical Islam has a higher kill count even while being a lower population in the US; this was done within I believe it was ten year window, removing things like 9/11 that would skew the results. Con insists we should widen the window and not look at averages to cherry pick the evidence (aka, BS).
3. Blacks
They apparently have a higher rate of gun violence than whites per capita. Con insists they should not be because it would lower their value as people (while calling black people “thugs”); which was pro’s point against doing it... Con decides to outright drop this, and whine about outliers.
---RFD (2 of 2)---
4. Mental Illness
Con asserts that we should look at skin color instead of such factors as mental illness, pro disagrees. Con also concedes that we should use mental hospitals, which pro is right to call a contradiction.
6. Various off topic crap
Stick to the topic, and start another debate on those interesting tidbits.
6. Conclusions
Con insists any argument based on emotions must be thrown out; all while dismissing the use of statistics preferring emotional punchlines... Pro on the other hand used those very things to reaffirm his victory.
---
Arguments:
See above review of key points. Pro pulled a smart reversal attacking the idea of race, insisting white people and black people are just people, making the resolution effectively a declaration that all people should be labeled as domestic terrorists, which would make zero sense.
Sources:
No doubt earned, but I have a thing against going through links to find lists of sources (they’re worth 2/3rds of arguments, that they take a little space is to be expected).
Conduct:
“Pro is on the ropes right about now & his knees are buckling.” Con making disparaging claims about what pro is doing outside the argument, merits the loss of the point. I was actually going to leave this in the tied range anyway, before noticing that con specifically accused pro of murdering hundreds of thousands of Native Americas.
In contrast pro seemed composed, and did not accuse anyone of large scale war crimes.
Technically as this is written under Boolean logic if either is agreed to be hotter than the other pro wins. I doubt he is using that tactic, but it's worth noting on an obvious comedic debate.
---RFD (1 of 2)---
Interpreting the resolution:
WTF?
Gist:
Pretty hard to follow, but I could make sense of four contentions to which I am confident con won, plus one that I am undecided on.
1. Bias
Con argues that debating generally does not help people overcome their biases, using voting outcomes as an example. Pro says con’s example is off topic to the resolution, which is a pretty cheap semantic Kritik given that there isn’t one.
2. Good for brain (con)
Builds fast responses and critical thinkinking.
Con counters with a Normalive Kritik, to include other subjectively better ways to train for faster responses.
There was some more, the Jeopardy one was noteworthy (started by pro, flipped to favor con).
3. Helps in class (con)
Pro suggests it does, but con counters with Crossed as evidence, to include that a religious education may take his words for truisms (thus no more worth studying than if the sky is above us).
4. Adulthood (con)
Pro throws a URL at us. Debating is not throwing a random URL at people, and if that is the result of it, then it is indeed a bad thing... Con proceeds to offer a discourse Kritik on the ambiguity of the heading.
5. Waste of Time (con)
Haven’t seen this one in awhile (there was an epic debate on this)... Con lists better applications of our time. Pro basically drops this with some special pleading, which con wisely does not buy. Pro continues it because con has not proven that money is a good thing (a Normative K closely resembling an Epistemological K... I’m not going to pretend that this isn’t BS).
Arguments: con
See above review of key points. This debate felt weird at the start, then they got organized, then the goalpost started moving seemingly at random (not that there was ever a clearly defined goal to begin with)... Giving this to con for superior arguments. Given pro’s ambiguity problem leading to BoP issues, it would have been difficult (but not infeasible) for him to get more than a tie.
Sources: con
Pro, you can literally give links to specific votes; I should not have to look for them, and when I do, I expect to find them somewhere within each link under the prompt for them...
Pro also had an issue of link spamming, instead of integrating them in.
Con’s use of Crossed as evidence put a smile on my face, and it made great strides toward dismissing the idea of debating as useful to schoolwork.
Additionally, please keep things organized by headings (main contentions at least bolded to follow each track through the rounds).
Not assigning this point, but please structure things better in future. I honestly wonder if less patient voters might side against con just for having gone first in this mess.
Conduct:
Leaving tied, but please don’t include lines like “as soon as you understand that fact, we can actually debate.”
Almost 3K into a RFD, and I am undecided. When I've had more sleep I might look over it again. If I score points or not, I'll be sure to leave feedback.
So you admit to using the short article as evidence, and agreeing with it. Given the very next line of it explains why those assumptions of the "creationist argument" are wrong (and you're not illiterate), you've conceded that the creationist argument is wrong. That or you disagree with that article, in which case you would have have shared it as evidence against creationism.
Given that someone previously tried to votebomb in favor of RM (who did not participate in this debate...), would a person or two mind casting a safety vote?
This was a pretty close one. I believe the debate largely moved in goalpost to definition of God, and under that I found con's chosen definitions more reasonable, especially since he had BoP and it was a two round debate to which he would not have the last word (I think I explained in my RFD that forcing him to restart with another would reduce it to a single round debate, which would be extremely unfair). That some definitions are more commonly used, doesn't mean they are better; and con did include a whole contention linking his definition to being an agent of volition rather than just chance (which was challenged under pro's definition, not cons).
Comparing the strength of the contentions for and against, and then the refutations for each, that God exists (at least within the stated definition) seems true. I was not left in question of the validity nor soundness of con's case (https://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/), and his pre-refutations took the major sting out of the offense (things like mentioning the infinite regression problem).
Interpreting the resolution:
Dem. or Rep. better match Tor.
Gist:
Con intentionally or not used Argumentum ad tl;dr. Followed by what I hope was pure trolling, rather than trying to prove the republican party more closely adheres to religious values. At a certain point I could not continue to read the hate speech; but it seemed going forward from there con continued to drop everything to make attacks against various groups of people he dislikes, rather than ever try to meet his BoP of showing the republican party related to the Torah (if the democrats do not, or if people deserve bad things in life, does not actually say anything about the republican party as the resolution requires).
1. Health Care
“…we are commanded to care for the widow, the orphan, the stranger, and to guard our health and our brother’s blood” this is further supported with “A scholar is forbidden to live in any town that does not have these ten things: a court, a charity fund, a synagogue, a bathhouse, a latrine, a doctor, a bloodletter, a scribe, a kosher butcher and a teacher of children.” A good opening, followed by some hard facts about insulin prices and attempts to strip away health care access.
Con eventually responds, drops that less people are insured thanks to Trump (who I would have argued isn’t to blame, but con’s got the right to argue how he wishes), he then argues against science because of a profound distrust for math “45,000 people died due to the lack of health coverage. The problem is, that's just a statistic.” … continued into attacks against people he dislikes and talk of the Torah commanding greed… I’m just giving this to pro as con is at best just trolling.
2. Minimum Wage
Pro offers various bible and Torah lines, but in gist: “Increasing the minimum wage to a living wage fulfills the Torah’s obligation to care for our employees and improve their dignity via work. Democrats are fulfilling this obligation while Republicans are opposing this.”
And the start to con’s reply: “My only comment is that if you're dumb enough to still be on minimum wage by 36, in which case, you've disregarded other opportunities such as college or trade school, then you're IQ must be at room temperature and you deserve whatever hell comes your way because you've failed as a human being…”
3. Immigration
4. Democracy
5. Bandwagon fallacy
“One in six Jews are Republican. … But these are just a few examples of how Republican beliefs align with Torah.” This was the limited on topic highlight of con’s R1, the rest was a fine example of Argumentum ad tl;dr.
6. Ad Hominem
“I couldn't help but look at the profile of my opponent's page. To be short,…” I should never see this inside a debate, for a host of reasons… This primarily affects conduct, but it lowers the credibility of the person wasting my time (identifying when these happen would be fine, as I know what content will be there so can skim, at least if given a proper headline,).
Arguments:
See above review of key points (at least the ones I went through before realizing what this debate was corrupted into). If redoing this, understand that I am not going to read the Torah (with the exception of any vital cited passages) to read a debate, so much is taking what the debaters say about it at face value (about like fiat assumptions).
Sources:
I never thought I would see the say, but I’m awarding sources for religious texts. This was a debate about religious teachings, so failing to connect back to them (or even the gist of them) is failing to even try for BoP. Pro provided a ton to prove his case (plus lots of quality ones which given that this debate was trolled, I am not going to bother getting into). His other sources had a high tendency to be ON TOPIC. In contrast, a Gallup poll proving (while elsewhere complaining on pro using statistics, which are science thus must be distrusted…) a fallacious band wagon appeal which does not prove anything about ideologies of the political parties (this was the closest thing I could find to an on topic argument from con in R1). This is not even getting into the issue of source spamming.
S&G:
Not deducting the point, but con seriously, don’t hide your points in walls of text. Also less question marks.
Conduct:
“Have you put an ounce of thought into this? You seem like a smart guy, you surely must have, so what's your answer?” clearly designed to insult the intellect of the other debater, while ignoring the on topic arguments (a case could be made the Torah opposes abortion, and thus the democratic party falls short in this comparative metric, but such was not presented). And it continues. “I didn't expect a response at all. I thought he'd be too scared after I mentioned abortion.”
So I suspect your RFD needs to be lengthened in order to have the debate you desire. What you're probably going to argue is that people should read the papers published by the scientist, as opposed to just cherry-picked snippets (just had a creationist basically concede a debate by pulling a source which was directly opposed to his beleifs, because he did not bother to read it: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1267/life-coming-into-existence-without-god-is-zero). Your current RFD basically translates 'reject expert opinion,' when what you want is 'don't blindly trust appeals to authority.'
If someone intentionally prevents you from reading their case, it's fair to vote on that. Besides, you got the gist of the debate quite well marked up in your vote.
Hard to have any true inaccuracies on one of these (when I accepted this debate I genuinely thought he'd attempt a new argument, rather than spam trolling the old tried and not true ones). I honestly suspect you read more of what pro wrote than I did.
Regarding spaghetti, it would be an intelligent creator (not just intelligent life, I assume this was a typo) and a bowl of pasta. The FSM is a useful bare minimum test for any absurd claim, if the claim makes more sense with the involvement of sentient omnipotent pasta (or the invisible pink unicorns... being invisible they lack color, but we have faith that they're pink anyway), it's probably just garbage.
Regarding BoP, I am pretty certain pro saw people saying the other person has it in debates, so tried to copy that without understanding what it means. Were he to have BoP (as the setup outright demands... but I'm willing to play), if he proved that life could not develop without God he would win no matter how much I ridicule him; by shifting it to me, if God not being involved has any chance greater than zero (even the absurdity of someone else like Jesus having done it, as pro conceded), I win no matter what the bible says about the appendix (I seriously did not read that argument from him in the debate, but I assume it's in there given pro's comment about it).
Thanks for voting, doubly so for such a long and detailed one with so much thought put into it. At 13,490 characters, it surpassed our 12K limit, and was in fact almost twice the length of my R3.
---RFD 3 of 3---
Arguments: Pro
See above review of key points. While vaping is not pure good, it was shown to be a net benefit to the population. ... If the debate was to be some type of absolute, such should have been clarified in the description. The resolution was not written in any way to rule out vaping as a good alternative to worse things, and all resolutions should be written with some desired path of argumentation.
Sources: Pro
I was going to leave this tied at first glance, but seeing quality of sources raised as a repeated subpoint and them specifically asked for in the grading...
Pro integrated his sources into his arguments, such as Harvard showing the improved rates of quitting smoking vs use of other treatments, and of course quick informational bits from WebMD.
Con made such blunders as a dental website not talking about vaping (which had no place in a debate about it), and a snake oil sales site disliking WebMD (which ended up bolstering instead of harming WebMD, by bringing attention back to the quality of pro’s sources, while poisoning the well for con’s own side).
S&G: tied
Please leave contention numbers in place; and ideally leave the text for them in place in every round as bolded and underlined contention headings to make lines of thought easy to follow. Also, random use of ALL CAPS is to be avoided.
Conduct: Pro
Con’s “I like how you're changing the rules of the debate (sarcasm). Let me make this clear: YOUR JOB IS...” nets the loss of this point. Even if I bought his K of the debate he instigated, where was the magical rule violated? Never lie to the audience about debate content which is verifiably different or absent.
Pro on the other hand stayed respectful, even talking con through many different tactic options at his disposal in R1.
No one survived Imagine Dragon songs!
The chance to convince the audience was inside the debate rounds. Start a new debate if you feel you left out an argument winning point, and include it then.
Regarding Jesus' talk of thought crime and dismemberment for imagined sins... Dismissing his words as hyperbole he did not mean for anyone to take seriously, risks the coherence factor in following his teachings as a moral system. On the other hand (pun intended), following the letter of his word would be dangerous and stupid; about like if followers of Islam were to actually riot over cartoonist renderings.
Part of the problem is that in both cases, either are not simply one moral system, but each a spectrum with different focuses and interpretations (arguably they are both parts of the same spectrum within Abrahamic faith...).
OMG so my professor said that numbers are just a social construct, and that they like don't even like mean anything in the real world; and they're all like eurocentric anyway so we should um like reject them for like that and stuff. There was this this thing called the three-fifths compromise, which wrongly implied five is greater than three, but we know anyone who thinks that is evil. Our number system was culturally appropriated from the Arabs anyway, so like no one else is allowed to use them, and if you do you're like so totally a racist and a horrible person...
/Satire
Yes, they are inverted in my vote. The correct winner is still indicated in the actual allotment.
The addendum is full BoP would not be on the instigator. However the contender immediately gave evidence of harm done, at which point disproving the causal connection to that was the duty of the instigator.
Neal,
Welcome to the site. Your vote falls below the standards specified in the Code of Conduct (https://www.debateart.com/rules), additionally you're supposed to part in a couple debates before voting (it's kind of to ensure everyone has seen how fair voting is to be done, before they attempt it).
While I actually agree with you, I've reported your vote to the moderators for deletion. This isn't anything against you as a person, merely an attempt to uphold values of fairness debaters expect when their hard work is graded. For one such example, see my own vote on this debate: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1383/vote_links/3470 (notice that by default everything is a tie, but con actively came ahead on arguments so pulled that away from being a tie)
Related but not part of my decision:
The resolution is really hard to disprove, even if the outcome has no bearing on our lives. It’s similar to pointing out that altruists enjoy doing good things so aren’t true altruists; as if that would in any way corrupt the good work they do (it’d actually be pretty creepy if they hated helping other people, and did it full of resentment).
However it's fine for philosophy explore in these directions.
---RFD 1 of 2---
Gist:
Con drops a lot of points even stating he would defend his case against rebuttals in a future round that he did not publish. Even without this, pro was pulling ahead, perhaps due to con trying to rule of the complexity of the mind, which no theory I know of rejects. Were the resolution the MS is true, I would probably mark this a tie, as is, the argument that it is the most likely hypothesis (non-testable, so I won’t call it a theory) held up.
1. Epistemological Parsimony
The only certainty is that we exist, and Occam’s Razor says we should trust that certainty.
Con gives a tentative concession, “I am in agreement with Pro that the existence of the mind is a most certain and irrefutable fact. I also agree that ‘the external reality which is said to exist [without] the mind does not share the same certainty.’” But he goes on to assert that Agnosism is the most likely, we just can’t know... Which dances around the issue, rather than actually giving a hypothesis which can be likely or not (even if it is the best to follow, it’s not one that makes any claims on its likelihood of being true). Con moves on to trying to twist pro’s strongly supported case into a didit fallacy... It’s grasping at straws.
2. Monistic Idealism
Surprised to see ghosts referenced here (that they can’t touch stuff as evidence for the mind and body being distinct), but it was a nice break from the hard stuff...
Anyway, con challenges that this focuses on the mind-body problem, which MS rejects the existence of the second half. This was a strong point, which both missed (pro opted to respond to other parts, and con did not extend his best piece in light of that).
---RFD 2 of 2---
3. MS isn't consistent with observation
Between dreams and reality seeming to not be glitchy, con makes some solid points.
Pro counters with reminding us that con has not justified the need for these things to exist outside the mind. Then moves on to the bigger issue that (simplifying it down) we don’t remember our dreams or understand them if we do, but still have them.
Con basically says the mind being complex and layered defeats MS, but I missed how and why it would do this.
4. The existence of an objective reality is more likely
Short, but sweet; even using The Matrix as an additional alternative. Sadly, pre-refuted with the explanation of how Occam’s Razor applies to MS.
After that it basically morphs into repeated content from other argument lines.
---
Arguments: pro
See above review of key points.
Sources: pro
Con only started really trying to support his case with external evidence in his final round (as much as I enjoyed that Matrix clip),
S&G: tie
Not penalizing, but con’s interest shortage showed in R2 when he ceased applying special formatting to his case. Pro on the other hand offered a steady stream (but not spammed) of reliable sources giving extra insight to his case. Of note I should point to Spinoza’s Modal Metaphysics, which potentially offered a path to falsifiability. Additionally the article “Conscious and Unconscious Memory Systems” was leveraged very well to demonstrate layers of the subconscious, defending against attacks to the mind being limited only by the conscious.
Conduct: pro
Missed round.
I'm merrily reminded of a debate I had which stemmed from someone bad at math insisting 1-1=2, and claiming anyone (probably calculators as well) who disagrees are trolls:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/803/default-auto-loss-on-forfeit
---RFD 1 of 2---
Interpreting the resolution:
On balance Saudi Arabia (SA) is the most immoral or wicked country today.
Gist:
From various direct human rights abuses to outright sponsoring terrorism, SA was proven to be highly immoral and wicked. There was no counter case, con forfeited for over a month (60% of the debate I might add)...
Concession policy:
We may vote on the grounds of an explicit concession without considering arguments, but not an implicit one. Outside of the debate pro gave an implicit concession (it was grouped for the dozen debates he had ongoing, this one was not explicitly called out), so that were what we graded, the implicit concession of con choosing to drop every argument and make none for a whole month, is far closer to being an explicit concession than what pro did.
1. Human Rights
“Saudi Arabia is the seventh most authoritarian regime in the world”
“Women in Saudi Arabia are considered second-class citizens and are denied many of the freedoms granted to Saudi Arabian men.”
“Homosexuals are imprisoned and executed”
“required to be Muslim by law ... Atheists are considered terrorists through a royal decree” WTF?
“Jammal Kashoggi, who was murdered by Saudi agents in Turkey simply because of his opposition to the Saudi government.”
Etc., Etc.
2. Sponsors International Terrorism
“Saudi Arabia sponsored and continues to sponsor terrorist organizations such as the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, and Al-Nusra” And first random line my eyes went to on the source for that “includes links to 9/11 and the growing threat posed by ISIS.”
3. “Forfeited” & “conceded”
“Forfeited” was all con offered in refutation of the topical case (which is to say nothing). A Kritik that the debate should not apply was begun, but any reason to reject the debate content was missing from the appeal.
---RFD 2 of 2---
Arguments:
See above review of key points. I have just used skimmed quotes from pro, as they were powerful and completely non-contested (plus those were just the tip of the iceberg for these issues).
No other nations but SA were introduced into the debate for consideration, nor even the slightest defense of SA as not being purely evil (even a Kritik that evil doesn’t exist would have been better than this...).
Sources:
Sources alone are not arguments. Con offers a single link to a forum, and says he should win for that.
Pro on the other hand offered over a dozen insightful sources, backing up the claims he made about SA. The Wikipedia article on them beheading civilians and refusing to let their families have the bodies stands out (side note: disappearing people is considered a worse war crime than just murder, since the family will never know for certain if the person is really dead; or maybe off somewhere still being tortured), as does the Amnesty International report and the details it links to of the murder and dismemberment of Jamal Khashoggi at a Turkish embassy (side note: whose body they also won’t give up, even while alternating between claims of it was an accident or he’s alive and healthy).
Conduct:
Greater forfeiture from con (pro missed the end, but less than half forfeited vs over half forfeited is a pretty significant difference; even more so when a single missed round is grounds for a conduct award). The only main negative thing to say about pro, is him complaining about what happened “Don't you hate it when you decide to argue a very important topic, put a lot of work and research into it, and then a newcomer...” Which applies to why we have voting standards for any debate.
I assume you are referring to how quickly my vote came in? Just a coincidence of timing, and a very easy debate to vote on.
I got to say, your vote caused me to look on con's case again, and in retrospect there was a depth of soul revealed... So in retrospect:
Actually I quite liked it. I thought that some of the metaphysical imagery was really particularly effective. Interesting rhythmic devices too, which seemed to counterpoint the surrealism of the underlying metaphor of the humanity of the poet's compassionate soul, which contrives through the medium of the verse structure to sublimate this, transcend that, and come to terms with the fundamental dichotomies of the other, and one is left with a profound and vivid insight into whatever it was the poem was about!
Welcome to the site. Sadly your vote falls short of the standards, so will be deleted. I hope that does not discourage you, and that you soon begin taking part in debates.
Thank you both for voting.
In future please use contention headings throughout the debate (in essence, that R1 bolded text should stay bolded and recycled into each round). https://tiny.cc/DebateArt
---RFD (1 of 2)---
Gist:
This should not have been so hard to read...
1. Easier Communication (pro)
Faster than smoke signals and the like.
Challenged with the existence of various other means of communication (including cell phones and messenger apps... ugh). Talking also ranks 11th in how people use smartphones.
Some of the other communication means are contested on grounds of access restrictions, and in general not being computers.
2. Utility (pro)
List good things about smartphones in that they save space, and potentially money (Toys R Us example).
The money example is disputed, as the source cited non-smartphone games.
Pro continues by explaining that smartphones are small computers which can be carried in a pocket.
It goes on to what pro reduces to luddite complaints.
3. Saves Lives
When kidnapping people, you can get them to give you directions on their GPS (brilliant!).
Mitigated as the maps fall under the utility argument, not a special unique argument onto itself (plus the kidnapper was stupid, which the smartphone did not induce). ... Somehow con later tries to make this into a negative for exploiting stupidity.
---RFD (2 of 2)---
4. Hurts Test Scores (con)
Korean student grades are inversely correlated to smart phone access. This was asserted to be unrelated to smartphones, but the greater time spent not using them...
5. Addiction (con)
Anyway both agree that addiction is a thing, that people can be better doesn’t change it, nor does fault matter. Con tries to relate it to the dangers of tobacco, pro explains the lack of lung cancer. Pro also shifts some of the problem to social media, which people will be addicted to with or without smartphones (it mitigates the problem, but smartphones still play a role in access).
---
Arguments:
See above review of key points. I’m leaning in pro’s favor on this, but I have stuff to go do, and am willing to admit my bias as a smartphone user; so will not award this without greater consideration to the cost/benefit. Thus, leaving it tied.
Sources:
These could have been integrated much better.
S&G:
Pro could have taken this had he not switched to a weird style in R2. Otherwise I would have penalized con for poor formatting that initially caused me to think he conceded (I don’t always read things in the normal order, so checking his responses to C1 before moving on to C2, the lack of anything to mark what was a quotation from pro made it look like con was listing how great smartphones are).
Conduct:
Trying to trick voters is inexcusable: “Yes it's stopping face-to-face interaction, thank you for conceding. The only things that use smartphones are humans, and if it does bad things to humans, it's bad. VOTERS: CONCESSION!” I think we’ve all been there, explaining as pro does: “Me defending smartphones, refuting your arguments, and backing it up with various sources is by no means a ‘concession’.” That he gave some ground, doesn’t mean he conceded the whole debate, as con repeatedly proclaims.
I should note here that pro had zero obligation to waive the last round.
https://www.debateart.com/rules
Something else you'll find useful: https://tiny.cc/DebateArt
I'm citing this debate in the Kritik guide.
You previously complained of the lack of votes on this debate. There's three days left in the voting window if you wish to take positive action.
Credit to actually using a non-fallacies form of didit.
If you're not illiterate, please restate the conclusion of that article? I'll give you a hint; following where your quote left off:
"...If this were the theory of abiogeneisis, and if it relied entirely on random chance, then yes, it would be impossible for life to form in this way. However, this is not the case.
"Abiogenesis was a long process with many small incremental steps, all governed by the non-random forces of Natural Selection and chemistry. The very first stages of abiogenesis were no more than simple self-replicating molecules, which might hardly have been called alive at all.
"For example, the simplest theorized self-replicating peptide is only 32 amino acids long. The probability of it forming randomly, in sequential trials, is approximately 1 in 10^40, which is much more likely than the 1 in 10^390 claim creationists often cite.
"Though, to be fair, 10^40 is still a very large number. It would still take an incredibly large number of sequential trials before the peptide would form. But remember that in the prebiotic oceans of the early Earth, there would be billions of trials taking place simultaneously as the oceans, rich in amino acids, were continuously churned by the tidal forces of the moon and the harsh weather conditions of the Earth..."
Welcome to the site. Something you may find useful: https://tiny.cc/DebateArt
---RFD (1 of 2)---
Interpreting the resolution:
In the comment section pro clarified “condemn everyone of the perpetrator's race.”
Gist:
More an attempt at hiding behind ambiguity and moving the goalpost than a real debate.
1. “The White Male”
Major ambiguity problem; is it the one guy in particular, to which “Another white male” is unrelated? Or is it the group as the resolution seemed to indicate? Pro reminds us that this is broadly “32% of the population.” And very good use of MLK saying people should “not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” And backed it up with the idea that race doesn’t exist as defined by con.
2. Muslims
Pro uses data mining to conclude that if any group were to receive such a label, radical Islam has a higher kill count even while being a lower population in the US; this was done within I believe it was ten year window, removing things like 9/11 that would skew the results. Con insists we should widen the window and not look at averages to cherry pick the evidence (aka, BS).
3. Blacks
They apparently have a higher rate of gun violence than whites per capita. Con insists they should not be because it would lower their value as people (while calling black people “thugs”); which was pro’s point against doing it... Con decides to outright drop this, and whine about outliers.
---RFD (2 of 2)---
4. Mental Illness
Con asserts that we should look at skin color instead of such factors as mental illness, pro disagrees. Con also concedes that we should use mental hospitals, which pro is right to call a contradiction.
6. Various off topic crap
Stick to the topic, and start another debate on those interesting tidbits.
6. Conclusions
Con insists any argument based on emotions must be thrown out; all while dismissing the use of statistics preferring emotional punchlines... Pro on the other hand used those very things to reaffirm his victory.
---
Arguments:
See above review of key points. Pro pulled a smart reversal attacking the idea of race, insisting white people and black people are just people, making the resolution effectively a declaration that all people should be labeled as domestic terrorists, which would make zero sense.
Sources:
No doubt earned, but I have a thing against going through links to find lists of sources (they’re worth 2/3rds of arguments, that they take a little space is to be expected).
Conduct:
“Pro is on the ropes right about now & his knees are buckling.” Con making disparaging claims about what pro is doing outside the argument, merits the loss of the point. I was actually going to leave this in the tied range anyway, before noticing that con specifically accused pro of murdering hundreds of thousands of Native Americas.
In contrast pro seemed composed, and did not accuse anyone of large scale war crimes.
Nih:
You're welcome.
Club:
I'm willing to discuss any aspects of the vote to which you disagreed. I do truly dislike the voter shortage inflating the value of my voice.
Both:
You could always do a rematch, with a clearly refined resolution, and making use of my formatting guide.
Technically as this is written under Boolean logic if either is agreed to be hotter than the other pro wins. I doubt he is using that tactic, but it's worth noting on an obvious comedic debate.
---RFD (1 of 2)---
Interpreting the resolution:
WTF?
Gist:
Pretty hard to follow, but I could make sense of four contentions to which I am confident con won, plus one that I am undecided on.
1. Bias
Con argues that debating generally does not help people overcome their biases, using voting outcomes as an example. Pro says con’s example is off topic to the resolution, which is a pretty cheap semantic Kritik given that there isn’t one.
2. Good for brain (con)
Builds fast responses and critical thinkinking.
Con counters with a Normalive Kritik, to include other subjectively better ways to train for faster responses.
There was some more, the Jeopardy one was noteworthy (started by pro, flipped to favor con).
3. Helps in class (con)
Pro suggests it does, but con counters with Crossed as evidence, to include that a religious education may take his words for truisms (thus no more worth studying than if the sky is above us).
4. Adulthood (con)
Pro throws a URL at us. Debating is not throwing a random URL at people, and if that is the result of it, then it is indeed a bad thing... Con proceeds to offer a discourse Kritik on the ambiguity of the heading.
5. Waste of Time (con)
Haven’t seen this one in awhile (there was an epic debate on this)... Con lists better applications of our time. Pro basically drops this with some special pleading, which con wisely does not buy. Pro continues it because con has not proven that money is a good thing (a Normative K closely resembling an Epistemological K... I’m not going to pretend that this isn’t BS).
---RFD (2 of 2)---
---
Arguments: con
See above review of key points. This debate felt weird at the start, then they got organized, then the goalpost started moving seemingly at random (not that there was ever a clearly defined goal to begin with)... Giving this to con for superior arguments. Given pro’s ambiguity problem leading to BoP issues, it would have been difficult (but not infeasible) for him to get more than a tie.
Sources: con
Pro, you can literally give links to specific votes; I should not have to look for them, and when I do, I expect to find them somewhere within each link under the prompt for them...
Pro also had an issue of link spamming, instead of integrating them in.
Con’s use of Crossed as evidence put a smile on my face, and it made great strides toward dismissing the idea of debating as useful to schoolwork.
S&G:
“0-0-0-0-0-0-0-00-0-0-0-0-0-0-00-0-0-0-0-0-0-00-0-0-0-0-0-0-00-0-0-0-0-0-0-00-0-0-0-0-0-0-00-0-0-0-0-0-0-00-0-0-0-0-0-0-00-0-0-0-0-0-
MOVING ON!”
Why was this in here?
Additionally, please keep things organized by headings (main contentions at least bolded to follow each track through the rounds).
Not assigning this point, but please structure things better in future. I honestly wonder if less patient voters might side against con just for having gone first in this mess.
Conduct:
Leaving tied, but please don’t include lines like “as soon as you understand that fact, we can actually debate.”
Almost 3K into a RFD, and I am undecided. When I've had more sleep I might look over it again. If I score points or not, I'll be sure to leave feedback.
So you admit to using the short article as evidence, and agreeing with it. Given the very next line of it explains why those assumptions of the "creationist argument" are wrong (and you're not illiterate), you've conceded that the creationist argument is wrong. That or you disagree with that article, in which case you would have have shared it as evidence against creationism.
Did you or did you not share http://evolutionfaq.com/articles/probability-life as evidence for how life really came to be?
Given that someone previously tried to votebomb in favor of RM (who did not participate in this debate...), would a person or two mind casting a safety vote?
On vacation, and unsure if I was notified for this at all previously.
This was a pretty close one. I believe the debate largely moved in goalpost to definition of God, and under that I found con's chosen definitions more reasonable, especially since he had BoP and it was a two round debate to which he would not have the last word (I think I explained in my RFD that forcing him to restart with another would reduce it to a single round debate, which would be extremely unfair). That some definitions are more commonly used, doesn't mean they are better; and con did include a whole contention linking his definition to being an agent of volition rather than just chance (which was challenged under pro's definition, not cons).
Comparing the strength of the contentions for and against, and then the refutations for each, that God exists (at least within the stated definition) seems true. I was not left in question of the validity nor soundness of con's case (https://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/), and his pre-refutations took the major sting out of the offense (things like mentioning the infinite regression problem).
---RFD (1 of 3)---
Interpreting the resolution:
Dem. or Rep. better match Tor.
Gist:
Con intentionally or not used Argumentum ad tl;dr. Followed by what I hope was pure trolling, rather than trying to prove the republican party more closely adheres to religious values. At a certain point I could not continue to read the hate speech; but it seemed going forward from there con continued to drop everything to make attacks against various groups of people he dislikes, rather than ever try to meet his BoP of showing the republican party related to the Torah (if the democrats do not, or if people deserve bad things in life, does not actually say anything about the republican party as the resolution requires).
1. Health Care
“…we are commanded to care for the widow, the orphan, the stranger, and to guard our health and our brother’s blood” this is further supported with “A scholar is forbidden to live in any town that does not have these ten things: a court, a charity fund, a synagogue, a bathhouse, a latrine, a doctor, a bloodletter, a scribe, a kosher butcher and a teacher of children.” A good opening, followed by some hard facts about insulin prices and attempts to strip away health care access.
Con eventually responds, drops that less people are insured thanks to Trump (who I would have argued isn’t to blame, but con’s got the right to argue how he wishes), he then argues against science because of a profound distrust for math “45,000 people died due to the lack of health coverage. The problem is, that's just a statistic.” … continued into attacks against people he dislikes and talk of the Torah commanding greed… I’m just giving this to pro as con is at best just trolling.
---RFD (2 of 3)---
2. Minimum Wage
Pro offers various bible and Torah lines, but in gist: “Increasing the minimum wage to a living wage fulfills the Torah’s obligation to care for our employees and improve their dignity via work. Democrats are fulfilling this obligation while Republicans are opposing this.”
And the start to con’s reply: “My only comment is that if you're dumb enough to still be on minimum wage by 36, in which case, you've disregarded other opportunities such as college or trade school, then you're IQ must be at room temperature and you deserve whatever hell comes your way because you've failed as a human being…”
3. Immigration
4. Democracy
5. Bandwagon fallacy
“One in six Jews are Republican. … But these are just a few examples of how Republican beliefs align with Torah.” This was the limited on topic highlight of con’s R1, the rest was a fine example of Argumentum ad tl;dr.
6. Ad Hominem
“I couldn't help but look at the profile of my opponent's page. To be short,…” I should never see this inside a debate, for a host of reasons… This primarily affects conduct, but it lowers the credibility of the person wasting my time (identifying when these happen would be fine, as I know what content will be there so can skim, at least if given a proper headline,).
---RFD (3 of 3)---
---
Arguments:
See above review of key points (at least the ones I went through before realizing what this debate was corrupted into). If redoing this, understand that I am not going to read the Torah (with the exception of any vital cited passages) to read a debate, so much is taking what the debaters say about it at face value (about like fiat assumptions).
Sources:
I never thought I would see the say, but I’m awarding sources for religious texts. This was a debate about religious teachings, so failing to connect back to them (or even the gist of them) is failing to even try for BoP. Pro provided a ton to prove his case (plus lots of quality ones which given that this debate was trolled, I am not going to bother getting into). His other sources had a high tendency to be ON TOPIC. In contrast, a Gallup poll proving (while elsewhere complaining on pro using statistics, which are science thus must be distrusted…) a fallacious band wagon appeal which does not prove anything about ideologies of the political parties (this was the closest thing I could find to an on topic argument from con in R1). This is not even getting into the issue of source spamming.
S&G:
Not deducting the point, but con seriously, don’t hide your points in walls of text. Also less question marks.
Conduct:
“Have you put an ounce of thought into this? You seem like a smart guy, you surely must have, so what's your answer?” clearly designed to insult the intellect of the other debater, while ignoring the on topic arguments (a case could be made the Torah opposes abortion, and thus the democratic party falls short in this comparative metric, but such was not presented). And it continues. “I didn't expect a response at all. I thought he'd be too scared after I mentioned abortion.”
Good luck on this troll debate.
A follow-up to this has finished (different instigator, so not the same quality):
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1125-should-abortion-be-illegal
Something good I will say about it, is the slavery angle goes much deeper.
Thanks for voting!
*LMAO*
Thanks for voting! And I'm sorry it wasn't an enjoyable read like last time.
So I suspect your RFD needs to be lengthened in order to have the debate you desire. What you're probably going to argue is that people should read the papers published by the scientist, as opposed to just cherry-picked snippets (just had a creationist basically concede a debate by pulling a source which was directly opposed to his beleifs, because he did not bother to read it: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1267/life-coming-into-existence-without-god-is-zero). Your current RFD basically translates 'reject expert opinion,' when what you want is 'don't blindly trust appeals to authority.'
If someone intentionally prevents you from reading their case, it's fair to vote on that. Besides, you got the gist of the debate quite well marked up in your vote.
Hard to have any true inaccuracies on one of these (when I accepted this debate I genuinely thought he'd attempt a new argument, rather than spam trolling the old tried and not true ones). I honestly suspect you read more of what pro wrote than I did.
Regarding spaghetti, it would be an intelligent creator (not just intelligent life, I assume this was a typo) and a bowl of pasta. The FSM is a useful bare minimum test for any absurd claim, if the claim makes more sense with the involvement of sentient omnipotent pasta (or the invisible pink unicorns... being invisible they lack color, but we have faith that they're pink anyway), it's probably just garbage.
Regarding BoP, I am pretty certain pro saw people saying the other person has it in debates, so tried to copy that without understanding what it means. Were he to have BoP (as the setup outright demands... but I'm willing to play), if he proved that life could not develop without God he would win no matter how much I ridicule him; by shifting it to me, if God not being involved has any chance greater than zero (even the absurdity of someone else like Jesus having done it, as pro conceded), I win no matter what the bible says about the appendix (I seriously did not read that argument from him in the debate, but I assume it's in there given pro's comment about it).
Thank you both for voting.
Thanks for voting, doubly so for such a long and detailed one with so much thought put into it. At 13,490 characters, it surpassed our 12K limit, and was in fact almost twice the length of my R3.