4. Human Life Span
Originally started by pro under the science heading, and refuted under the history heading… It’s important enough to get its own. Given how doubtful it is for a 600 year old to build much of anything, I am surprised this started as a key scientific argument from pro.
Pro claims humans live greater than 950 years (the reported life of Noah), con uses a source to say we physically reach our upper limit around 150. That is the end of it inside this debate.
Pro’s very last comment is: “I still have shown historical record for long-lived humans, and biological possibilities regarding them.” Even using word searches, I could not find this within the debate.
5. Boat Design
This is oddly where pro took the major source hit. When trying to over hype the Ark he quoted information about the shape being the best ever as reported by a scientist, but con went to the trouble of reading the actual paper the scientist wrote which contradicted that quote. While con did well in explaining even that scientist was not peer reviewed, I am going to accept that the boat design was possible (honestly infering details about hamster style water bottles, it’s odd but I just don’t consider this section important).
6. God
This came up a bit, but let me set the record straight: If he’s great or sucks is off topic.
---
Arguments:
See above review of key points. There were more, but there was already way too much doubt for it to come close to being closed with in depth talk of ocean craters.
Sources: Con
Bible of course, that’s not really considered a source on these… A key problem came up. Pro almost exclusively used AnsweringGensis.org, but it was proven to be lying (the Dr. Hong paper, which pro never defended). Since the source lied about what Dr. Hong wrote, it is no longer credible on any related matters. Without backup sources, pro lost massive ground on the debate by putting all his eggs in that basket.
Con on the other hand used a wide variety of sources (most often Wikipedia, which I consider informational, but in this case well played…), but he is mostly getting the point for challenging pro’s sole source. One big thing he did was proving the age limits on humans on scientific grounds, to include why we have a maximal age, which challenges the very possibility of Noah having built the ark hundreds of years after his death.
One source I do give pro some credit for, was the grid about flood legends (https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/flood-legends/flood-legends/). It very well supports that historically the flood in question could have happened (it does not support that it outright did by any standard other than history, and history a little loosely).
S&G: tied, but leaning con.
When trying to attract judges the character limit determines our commitment. We agree to read up to 20k per round, finding various links inside to the arguments surpassing that does not endear us.
Also bolding whole paragraphs of your text without reason is not charming. I suggest using this for in line quotations to ease the distinction between your words and someone elses, but not your own for more than a couple key words at a time. … Basic rule on this is that if everything were maximally important, nothing would above average importance.
Conduct: tied
Had con not seemed to approve the character limit violations, this would go to con without a question. As is, con gets a note of respect in this area, but one that does not carry points.
Came back... I'll try to post a RFD tonight or tomorrow morning (I have things to do with my day). It's looking like arguments and sources to con, but I have to re-read pro's closing round when free from the influence of a headache.
Key bit of advice is of course use a smaller scope (perhaps break this one into six separate small debates?), and stay inside the character limit.
I cleaned up the document (I had replied to the ethos comment days ago, without further response I removed it from the argument area). We're under 7k characters (I see no need to fluff things to fill character limits, for starters, it's disrespectful to any judges).
With Club going out of town it will have to be posted very early, I would suggest no later than Thursday morning.
As a judge, I would appreciate some minimal citation effort. I don't want to just take someones word for it based on fan fiction about what Yoda did to Luke.
I Googled a couple of the events, and the current government officially denies much of it... Which is strange, because when I was growing up with Empire issue history books, they seemed to have committed many more human rights violations. (yes, this is referencing Disney's decision to basically declare everything except the movies to be Fan Fiction).
Good topic for a debate. I suggest adding a couple limitations, mainly what shall be cannon for the debate (that way some jerk like me doesn't quote one of the expended universe books). Plus a general definition for good guys... Better yet, a direct resolution along the lines of 'The Empire Was Morally Superior To The Rebels.'
Come to think of it, a simple apply in comments rule is your best bet to get someone looking for the right spirit of debate.
Interpreting the resolution:
That belief in an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being who is the source of all creation is in accordance with human logic and reason.
Gist:
Pro bet the farm on the known and named uncaused cause, then failed to try to imply that God (as defined by the four O’s) would be that cause; which resulted in neither being suggested. Con on the other hand outlined a case for why those O’s are actually contradictory, which while challenged, was not successfully refuted.
1. Overview
A decent framing for the debate.
2. Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent: con
This got interesting, but without describing with a thousand characters… Con leveraged this to accuse pro of putting God in a box (thus less than the big four O’s), and con tried to point to the cosmological argument as a way out. I liked that pro tried to use an analogy (I’m a big fan of this tactic), but con reframed it to successfully counter that the blind man should not randomly start to assume Blue exists without reason. (Side note: my kind jumps to the tax code as a better analogy for things we don’t understand but still talk about).
This goes to con but does not seal the debate.
3. Omniscient: con
Con argues that knowledge can be first person specific. Pro basically drops this down to what was already explained to be less than all knowledge (knowledge of knowledge is not the knowledge itself…). Pro further basically conceded this point with “Also, if non-propositional knowledge is included then God would have knowledge of what it's like to be a sinner. Which he, in keeping with theology, doesn't have.” And yeah, once you’re saying instead of all knowledge it’s only certain knowledge (which is already throwing out the relatable angle), it’s no longer all knowledge.
4. Omnipresent: con
Weird because this started off not too well for con (I basically did not see the confusion as a true paradox), and it initially looked like pro was doing better here (even while throwing the previous two points further under the bus with removing personal knowledge and relationships (God doesn’t exist as we can hope to understand existence…)), but he directly concedes that God “cannot exist within time” which means God is not “present in all places at all times” as the resolution demands.
Regarding the special pleading of “viewing this question through the lens of our own temporal universe misses the actual question,” the goal is to convince us judges that God fits inside rationality as we are capable of understanding it, as opposed to feeding point about silence.
5. Omnipotent: con
Con lists some paradoxes, to which pro insists so long as God doesn’t do those things they aren’t really paradoxes. Had it ended here, I would have called it a tie, but pro coming back with senseless stuff about moving another rock instead to move the unmoveable, it makes the notion of omnipotence seem silly (thus non-rational) instead of merely outside our realm of understanding (I don’t the tax code, but I still file my taxes).
Con: thanks for the Sith bit, it helped me get through this.
6. Omnibenevolent: con
The visual imagery from con went on a bit long, but point taken. Pro insists the examples given are for the greater good (I did not notice even one example connecting to this…), and that torturing and killing a baby in the woods (not saying all evil as con later did, but I am filling in one of his distinct examples) is only subjectively evil, but not really evil in God’s eyes… “morality doesn't actually exist and only exists as a subjective standard for each individual person to consider for themselves” which since God is required to be omnibenevolent, saying benevolence doesn’t exist is conceding that God doesn’t exist (the required four O’s were stated in the description).
7. cosmological and Teleological
This felt a lot like a couple Red Herrings. Neither of these implies God (with the four O’s under discussion). Pro himself called it out “ok, what does this have to do with God?” and then failed to connect it to any personal benevolent being.
Seriously, this late in a debate especially when complaining about not enough characters, is not the time to drag in a dead horse. Neither of these could hope to overpower the rest of the arguments, so they should have been focused on instead.
---
Arguments: con
See above review of key points. Con won this by a large margin (had he only won one of those four major contentions, I would be conflicted… but all four, no doubt remains that he is the victor).
Sources: tied
Not grading these, as I have a pet peeve about URL shorteners which both sides used.
S&G: tied
I advise better use of consistent headings, even if subheadings shift around.
Conduct: tied
Be careful about lying in debates. Not enough of this stood out to quite assign the point, but it hurt credibility distracting from the arguments.
Key example: Con stated, “Pro also disputes that free will would exist in a perfectly moral world. Sure, there are some choices we could not make (like murder), but there are many choices we could make (like whether to be a painter or a philosopher). In such a world, the limited loss of free will is offset by the massive gains in morality” to which pro insisted that in no way addressed free will.
If the site is hurting you, there's no reason to stay.
Don't get me wrong, finish out debates already initiated... I would suggest perhaps using this site to test ideas before committing them to important papers, like a lower level of peer review.
In the google doc I've written replies to the first six of their contentions, plus outlined a simple counter plan. I am not attached to the wording, any of it can be changed or replaced. Unless anyone has any questions for me, I'll check back in a week and tidy up the formatting (such as right now using # for link numbers, in case more get filled in behind).
A religious argument in favor of this resolution just popped into my head. God commands it!
...
Incidentally, determinism would cover it broadly but someone might pull semantics of 'well that would mean it's determined before birth...'
I skimmed this debate while it was still underway, at which time pro’s R1 sources contained this line: “Rebuttal (No particular order yet:)” it no longer being there informs me that documents are being modified post hoc. I can give the benefit of the doubt that no sources were changed out, but if a judge even needs to ponder that is something to avoid.
It was entertaining while it lasted. Most of it took place in the comment section to another debate. If wanting to read it, here's a quick reading order...
Me reviewing a votebomb: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1101/comment_links/15187
The votebomb being deleted: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1101/comment_links/15220
And basically this one forward until #365: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1101/comment_links/15413
I really wish I could share some of the stuff he PMed me from various alt accounts he made.
As the #2 judge on this site, feasibility is often (but not exclusively) vital to proposal debates. I would go so far as to call it an unstated part of BoP. However, if both debaters treat something as possible, I follow their arguments and accept the possibility; but if it becomes a debate argument, the confidence of that argument acts as a negative multiplier to the rest.
I remember a classic Imabench debate about if women can do everything a man can do. Bench challenged the feasibility by pointing out women could not whip their dicks out and f. the bus driver. The opponent conceded that women could not do this, thus conceding that it was infeasible for women to do everything a man can do (in my head I thought of ways they could still do this, and probably do it better... but the debaters made their cases, and that was what I had to grade).
Anyway, to quote the style guide (http://tiny.cc/DebateArt):
"A quality opening round must address the Why and How.
> If the Why is missing, they are easily countered by the lack of benefit.
> If the How is missing, they are easily countered with impracticality and limited resources."
On another note, lightly skimming I saw the sources argument (more debates should do this). I only identified one paywall, but that many broken links seems unlikely to stem from website shuffling (pages move, but this many so fast?).
If you've overtaxed yourself, you can concede debates politely (even if not changing your mind), instead of just forfeiting (which creates a bad reputation).
For the audience, would you mind explaining why you believe it was a free win? It's been six months, so you're probably the only person who remembers why you forfeited.
I will say that it would seem reasonable to request a rematch and this former iteration be purged from the site (I've made this suggestion for other debates).
Sorry about that. I'm not one of the moderators. I literally did a word search thought your RFD for "sources," and that was the only part featuring that word.
---RFD (1 of 4)---
Interpreting the resolution:
Nixon > Roosevelt
Gist:
Two great men, but unfortunately the comparison stopped with the negatives of Roosevelt uncontested, and all positives of Nixon unchallenged by any negatives.
1. Civil Rights (1) vs Morals (1)
N. Nixon helped minorities enough to get MLK as a character witness.
R. Roosevelt going to law school and being disabled just doesn’t compare (don’t get me wrong, he was still a badass)
Anti-R. Did not listen to his expert advisers. Engaged in propaganda (didn’t they all?). Racist who sent 122k people to concentration camps, of whom 70k were full citizens; further they were directly robbed by the government and not economically reimbursed.
2. Saved His Political Party (2)
This should have been called unified the nation. The continued presence of any one political organization seems unimportant as people would almost certainly just organize similarly under another banner...
N. In short: He was “a pragmatist who would refuse to let ideology get in the way of progress.”
During the election, he won all but two states, which is quite the appeal to popularity. Even Obama could not unify us that well.
3. Environment (3) vs Environment (4)
N. Creating the EPA is quite the accomplishment. As is the Clean Air Act.
R. Ending the dust bowl seems like a divine intervention.
---RFD (2 of 4)---
4. Economics (4) vs Economics (2)
N. “reduced the deficit by over 70%” is amazing. Getting us off the gold standard is a ballsy move I cannot imagine modern presidents pulling off were it still in place.
R. Getting our money back into banks where it can enjoy the multiplier effect of spending (something not spelled out in the debate, but still worth mentioning for refinement of future arguments), is beyond words. Ending child labor and having a minimum wage, are also amazing (I believe N. raised the minimum wage, so neat to see how one followed in the footsteps of the other).
Anti-R. Child labor was already low (mostly rural, where they were often working family farms...), stuff about blacks (it’s dropped so pro gets it, but I feel the need to point out this not being a good interpretation o the data, even if utilized well as an argument). Ended up causing more unemployment worsening the great depression.
---RFD (3 of 4)---
5. Foreign Policy (5) vs Foreign Policy (2) and Superpower (5)
The superpower sounds good, but it is foreign policy worded for impact.
N. Ended one of our worst wars, got trade with the second world resumed, etc.
R. Got us into a necessary war, and presumably shaped the founding of the U.N. as a tool for the USA.
Anti-R. Speaking of WWII on the moral point, it came up that he rejected 1k Jewish refugees fleeing the holocaust, sending them back where many died. Plus empowered Russia with covering up some of their warcrimes, making them an increased threat to the USA. ... Pro continued by linking him to causing Pearl Harbor (on NPR I’ve listened to some stuff about them trying to declare war just before the attack, but us intentionally delaying their declaration to play victim... Not excusing their actions, just pointing out a funny historical detail about our role). And on the superpower note (I hoped this was coming), the simple fact that we did not have fighting on our soil causing our comparative economic strength, to which whomever happens to be president at the time does not get credit.
Arguments: pro
See above review of key points. Honestly, I felt that just on the strengths Nixon would win this, but his negatives are within living memory so may have cost him worse in R3 (I can’t imagine what would compare to the concentration camps, but something could have been argued as worse).
Sources: tied
I really dislike when things are posted outside the debate. I strongly suggest highlighting the intent to do that within the debate description... Actually I really suggest just increasing the character limit to hold them (and probably using a few less to get the gist across...).
S&G: tied
Both were fine.
Conduct: pro
Two rounds forfeited, vs the source issue... Had con raised the character limit violation, I would leave this tied, as is I’ll discount one of the forfeits, but that leaves a forfeit standing.
In case anyone is curious, here's a snapshot of my RFD draft at the end of R2...
1 Civil Rights (1) vs Morals (1)
N. Nixon helped minorities enough to get MLK as a character witness.
R. Roosevelt going to law school and being disabled just doesn’t compare (don’t get me wrong, he was still a badass)
2 Saved His Political Party (2) vs
This should have been called unified the nation. The continued presence of any one political organization seems pretty unimportant as people would just organize similarly under another banner...
N. In short: He was “a pragmatist who would refuse to let ideology get in the way of progress.”
During the election, he won all but two states, which is quite the appeal to popularity. Even Obama could not unify us that well.
R.
3 Environment (3) vs Environment (4)
N. Creating the EPA is quite the accomplishment. As is the Clean Air Act.
R. Ending the dust bowl seems like a divine intervention.
4 Economics (4) vs Economics (2)
N. “reduced the deficit by over 70%” is amazing. Getting us off the gold standard is a ballsy move I cannot imagine modern presidents pulling off were it still in place.
R. Getting our money back into banks where it can enjoy the multiplier effect of spending (something not spelled out in the debate, but still worth mentioning for refinement of future arguments), is beyond words. Ending child labor and having a minimum wage, are also amazing (I believe N. raised the minimum wage, so neat to see how one followed in the footsteps of the other).
5 Foreign Policy (5) vs Foreign Policy (2) and Superpower (5)
The superpower sounds good, but it is foreign policy worded for impact.
N. Ended one of our worst wars, got trade with the second world resumed, etc.
R. Got us into a necessary war, and presumably shaped the founding of the U.N. as a tool for the USA.
As stated in the removal notice, Dis' vote may be recast without refinement if merely by not assigning source points.
I highly advise if giving more than argument points, to single out the other areas with headings for quick review (makes it easy for the admin, and easy to double check yourself in case you forget something). I have taken to ending my debates with hand feeding voters samples of sources (at least if I believe I earned the point)...
For review, what was not enough to award sources:
>Because the U.S. healthcare system is not currently nationalized it is hard to say how much a nationalized system would cost without performing some sort of in-depth study on the topic. This is what I expected to find when pro said he had sources backing up his claim but since this number appears to be simply pulled out of thin this point is to be disregarded.
What was enough (actually overkill... but compare both sides, and name at least one specific source):
>Sources: Con
>So con repeatedly used a specific source which I am highly biased against. While I assumed I would be leaving this tied due to my bias against con, his source execution ended up overwhelming the strength of the bias.
>Both used a ton of sources, pro stabbed himself in the foot by just throwing them at the end of the rounds, which prevents judges from quickly checking details within them while reading the arguments. This becomes even more important when there’s raw numbers within them.
>Con gained some ground by catching pro misrepresenting details from a source. I’d still leave it tied there, but...
>The source on increased deaths in Canada was incredible, particularly how it was quoted within the debate to prove points.
>Also see: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1101/comment_links/15214
In case anyone was reading the off topic comments for entertainment, King_8 continued it with an emotional outpouring about it on another debate (https://www.debateart.com/debates/1137/comment_links/15624):
"They apparently think that I have some alt account voting in my favor which simply isn't true. No concrete proof, just assumptions. He's just my friend and he counted Franklin's vote but Ragnar spread lies about me to bsh1. So dont pay attention to any of that. That has nothing to do with me. People just love to push my buttons on here and be problematic because they are unhappy with their selves. So now because of that, I'm being banned. All because of Ragnar. I don't mind though because these bias mods never come to my aid when unfair things that does not go with CoC happens to me. Don't care because I planned on quitting this site. I don't deal with people like this. Sorry for the inappropriate behavior, thanks for the debate."
If his word is to be believed (not tracking down the individual denials, but https://www.debateart.com/debates/1101?open_tab=comments), it was neither a friend or his nor an alt account; thus it was most likely his mother whom is his role model teaching him to pull things like this when he loses.
If you want to get good at this topic, try arguing from the other side. Once you learn why the other side has valid conviction, it's easy to find the holes in their case.
Sorry for that distraction from your debate. I should not have engaged, but he should be gone now...
Wylted:
I fully agree with you on "It is better to not be undefeated as silly as that sounds."
Pink:
I suspect the reason Wylted did so well was your opening comments pissed him off, encouraging him to put in extra effort. It can be a useful tactic against the weak willed, as exemplified by me recently getting someone confused as to which of their alt accounts they posted something...
You're welcome. I don't normally vote on these as I'm an elitist jerk who insists they are not real debates... However, countering lame attempts to cheat and penalizing conduct still apply.
Your analogy would work had someone bumped into you or looked at you the wrong way and you responded by punching them in the face. Remember, your retaliation is 7 points worse than the damage done on a 7 point scale. And you say that's how your mother raised you... Someone hurts your precious feelings and you respond with violence.
>"Pink retaliated vote against you in some of your debates, so you know he's full of shit. Yet and still you are taking up for his inexcusable behavior." ... "I complained because of bullsh*t votes people gave me. Not people being 'better voters than me'"
As seen, a user who shares your name who you are now denying association with (the first quote) made the complaint about Pink's superior voting habits not being complained about (reminder, his retaliation was to cast fair votes).
>"I'm not asking to get coddled at all."
See: half your messages in here.
>"I've had plenty role-models in my life besides my mother. I'm also an adult so I'm not some kid. ... Don't ever disrespect me"
Then act like an adult instead an of overgrown brat. Don't whine about how "bias/unfair treatment" as an excuse to commit objectively worse things, then play whataboutism pretending you should have impunity to do whatever you want as if your parents failed to teach you discipline and responsibility for your failings. You complain that other people are not offended by other people being better voters than you. Oh and quit the site because people don't coddle you, but fail to ever leave because you want to complain some more about not getting coddled. ... Need I go on? This is not evidence of your mother being "a great role model," you've cast quite the opposite picture of her.
>"Rap battles don't have to be so formal."
You're right that they don't, but as long as they stay informal they are unmoderated. Solutions to your exact problem have been offered, but instead of using them or moving on, you cast 7point vote bombs in retaliation for 0 point mild nuisances... Another thing you could do is use the built in Judicial decision voting system; moderators will still not be involved, but since they're fake news or whatever you probably would prefer to not have them.
I guess you're not leaving after all. I was not replying because we already said our goodbyes...
To the most important points: No, I meant exactly what I wrote. As someone with intellectual integrity, this is usually the case. ... Also you desperately need better role-models in your life.
As for your problem of wanting troll debates to be judged like real debates: Have you considered making them real debates? It could be along the lines of 'Resolution: King_8 is a better rapper than opponent. R1 and R2 are raps, R3 onward is normative arguments about which raps were superior by the following standards... Note: This is not a troll debate or a rap battle, it is a debate about raping ability.'
To repeat myself: "Did you miss ... The lack of any damage done by voting ties? Or the lack of any relevance towards the shit vote in question on this debate?"
>"it should be taken seriously and be at the same standards as other debates"
If you believed this, you would have complained about the vote (https://www.debateart.com/debates/1049/vote_links/2559) for failing to meet the rigorous standards expected of votes on real debates. For starters, it lacked comparative analyse on each of the categories voted, which is one of the basic requirements when voting on real debates.
>"crazy..."
Before you continue on this site, you should really read the following two pages:
1. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346
2. https://www.debateart.com/rules
>"bias and unfair treatment."
Do you really expect a line like that to gain you anything from people who aren't your parents? Maybe we'll say 'that poor baby. Everyone stop what you'rte doing, a baby needs pity!' But it's highly unlikely.
>"GameLord is my alternate account?"
Nice strawperson. As seen "no zero sense unless the vote bomb countered was from a personal friend or alt account." Which the trends suggest "personal friend," but still leave the primary possibility of "zero sense."
Where are your complaints about his vote bomb in your favor? See vote: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1120/vote_links/2711
It is a vote which was intended to harm the outcome of the debate, thus creating real damage. That you say it had nothing to do with you, while mimicking your behaviors, does give weight (not conclusive weight) to the third possibility that he's an alt account.
As for Pink's votes... The places to discuss those in depth are where he cast the votes. I will however say of him related to this debate that he retaliated my voting against him by voting on some of my debates (I objectively won those debates, and as an adult that was how he voted).
---RFD (1 of 6) ... Incidentally, each post can hold up to 2000 characters. ---
Interpreting the resolution:
This debate changed titles again and again, but this final one they settled on looks vague enough to get the general intent across. Pro wins if the debate shows an increase in Socialism type polices (X) would have greater benefit than harm (Y), con otherwise (not Y).
Gist:
Con misrepresents pro’s case by acting like it’s an all or nothing deal, and we intuitively know what pro meant, but pro does not sufficiently refute this (he argues that absolute socialism isn’t the socialism he’s arguing in favor of, but that misses that an increase in socialism is taking steps toward absolute socialism... It’s a slippery slope fallacy, but an incredibly well executed one). I’m quite surprised to not see any mention of the bell curve for gains and losses. Con also makes very good use of syllogism to prove that socialism hurts more than it gains.
1. Q&A
Pro believes that con’s political beliefs determine if more socialism would be good or bad, con insists this is off topic... I am going to agree with con here, as much as a debate could be had on if libertarian beliefs contain socialist policies or whatever, here it’s just fodder for tu quoque fallacies. ... And they happen way later in the debate and keep coming back: “logically inconsistent and sort of hypocritical” +1000 maybe 2000? Characters more I am just skipping.
2.1 Universal Healthcare
Affordability: The end of pro’s R1 on this was weird, since con did not raise the challenge on that, nothing can be “debunked.” Anyway, pro shows a small cost decrease. Con briefly addresses this inside one of his points, unduly twisting pro’s words into that cost decrease being the creation of the cost (off topic: reminds me of AOC vs Amazon), pro then moves the goalpost by claiming different numbers than earlier (a disappearing $0.35 trillion is a lot), while not damning, it lowers the credibility of the argument.
Univ.: Pro claims longer life expectancy (and cites a support point for the affordability angle, which really should have been under the affordability heading).
Quality: Some apples to oranges comparisons,
2.2 Universal Healthcare continued later...
Life Expectancy (fat): Con, your source on diet says 36.2%, which rounds to 36%, not 37%. As I corrected pro, “while not damning, it lowers the credibility of the argument.” ... Anyway this ended up being a good contention just on entertainment value (note to all debaters: give us judges a reason to continue!). ... “This is a very common argument made and is a very horrible one to make.” This is a pet peeve of mine, but don’t complain about how horrible something is, just show it. A lot of replies here fell flat due to the source giving the index, and pro citing Germany as a counter example which does not even make it onto the top ten...
Deaths: Best use of a source I have seen in a long time. Con brings up more deaths would happen due to wait times, as apparently happened in Canada. He also mentions an alternate plan, which I’m not the biggest fan of (imaginary worlds where shit works out that way...), but other potential voters will no doubt eat up. Pro counters that Canada is not a good example, but as they’re culturally the best match for us I do not buy that; more so since this did not change the numbers (even while lowering the confidence; that leads to a lower expected increased mortality rate, not the absence of one as was asserted back in R1). ... So got to say it, pro could have gained some ground here with inverting the meaning of the death rate, as we’d have a lower carrying cost and higher average quality of life with these people dead (awful I know, but this would be logically valid and consistent with statistical arguments raised by con).
3. lower standard of living
P1: I rather like this opening, as it makes the judges feel involved via their common knowledge of places like Venezuela... It then dragged on and on, repeatedly with a sole source making itself highly vulnerable (all the eggs in one basket). Con’s counter was decent but needed to be expanded and perhaps cite examples from the source for the socialist well to do counties. On his trade comment, he hints at the best argument he could make (that there’s a golden level of socialist policies which would be better, before tipping into tyranny) but does not actually make the point. Con next drops the point claiming “statistics to back this poor hypothesis up which don’t need to be debunked since I already proved the hypothesis to be wrong” missing the fact that they feed each other; if the evidence is true (or unchallenged) then I have little reason to doubt the conclusion drawn by the evidence, even if there was some small challenge to said conclusion. “If we actually delve into these countries it appears they aren’t [socialistic]” an example here would have been fantastic.
4. Human Life Span
Originally started by pro under the science heading, and refuted under the history heading… It’s important enough to get its own. Given how doubtful it is for a 600 year old to build much of anything, I am surprised this started as a key scientific argument from pro.
Pro claims humans live greater than 950 years (the reported life of Noah), con uses a source to say we physically reach our upper limit around 150. That is the end of it inside this debate.
Pro’s very last comment is: “I still have shown historical record for long-lived humans, and biological possibilities regarding them.” Even using word searches, I could not find this within the debate.
5. Boat Design
This is oddly where pro took the major source hit. When trying to over hype the Ark he quoted information about the shape being the best ever as reported by a scientist, but con went to the trouble of reading the actual paper the scientist wrote which contradicted that quote. While con did well in explaining even that scientist was not peer reviewed, I am going to accept that the boat design was possible (honestly infering details about hamster style water bottles, it’s odd but I just don’t consider this section important).
6. God
This came up a bit, but let me set the record straight: If he’s great or sucks is off topic.
---
Arguments:
See above review of key points. There were more, but there was already way too much doubt for it to come close to being closed with in depth talk of ocean craters.
Sources: Con
Bible of course, that’s not really considered a source on these… A key problem came up. Pro almost exclusively used AnsweringGensis.org, but it was proven to be lying (the Dr. Hong paper, which pro never defended). Since the source lied about what Dr. Hong wrote, it is no longer credible on any related matters. Without backup sources, pro lost massive ground on the debate by putting all his eggs in that basket.
Con on the other hand used a wide variety of sources (most often Wikipedia, which I consider informational, but in this case well played…), but he is mostly getting the point for challenging pro’s sole source. One big thing he did was proving the age limits on humans on scientific grounds, to include why we have a maximal age, which challenges the very possibility of Noah having built the ark hundreds of years after his death.
One source I do give pro some credit for, was the grid about flood legends (https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/flood-legends/flood-legends/). It very well supports that historically the flood in question could have happened (it does not support that it outright did by any standard other than history, and history a little loosely).
S&G: tied, but leaning con.
When trying to attract judges the character limit determines our commitment. We agree to read up to 20k per round, finding various links inside to the arguments surpassing that does not endear us.
Also bolding whole paragraphs of your text without reason is not charming. I suggest using this for in line quotations to ease the distinction between your words and someone elses, but not your own for more than a couple key words at a time. … Basic rule on this is that if everything were maximally important, nothing would above average importance.
Conduct: tied
Had con not seemed to approve the character limit violations, this would go to con without a question. As is, con gets a note of respect in this area, but one that does not carry points.
Came back... I'll try to post a RFD tonight or tomorrow morning (I have things to do with my day). It's looking like arguments and sources to con, but I have to re-read pro's closing round when free from the influence of a headache.
Key bit of advice is of course use a smaller scope (perhaps break this one into six separate small debates?), and stay inside the character limit.
I cleaned up the document (I had replied to the ethos comment days ago, without further response I removed it from the argument area). We're under 7k characters (I see no need to fluff things to fill character limits, for starters, it's disrespectful to any judges).
With Club going out of town it will have to be posted very early, I would suggest no later than Thursday morning.
As a judge, I would appreciate some minimal citation effort. I don't want to just take someones word for it based on fan fiction about what Yoda did to Luke.
I Googled a couple of the events, and the current government officially denies much of it... Which is strange, because when I was growing up with Empire issue history books, they seemed to have committed many more human rights violations. (yes, this is referencing Disney's decision to basically declare everything except the movies to be Fan Fiction).
Good topic for a debate. I suggest adding a couple limitations, mainly what shall be cannon for the debate (that way some jerk like me doesn't quote one of the expended universe books). Plus a general definition for good guys... Better yet, a direct resolution along the lines of 'The Empire Was Morally Superior To The Rebels.'
Come to think of it, a simple apply in comments rule is your best bet to get someone looking for the right spirit of debate.
---RFD (1 of 4)---
Interpreting the resolution:
That belief in an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being who is the source of all creation is in accordance with human logic and reason.
Gist:
Pro bet the farm on the known and named uncaused cause, then failed to try to imply that God (as defined by the four O’s) would be that cause; which resulted in neither being suggested. Con on the other hand outlined a case for why those O’s are actually contradictory, which while challenged, was not successfully refuted.
1. Overview
A decent framing for the debate.
2. Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent: con
This got interesting, but without describing with a thousand characters… Con leveraged this to accuse pro of putting God in a box (thus less than the big four O’s), and con tried to point to the cosmological argument as a way out. I liked that pro tried to use an analogy (I’m a big fan of this tactic), but con reframed it to successfully counter that the blind man should not randomly start to assume Blue exists without reason. (Side note: my kind jumps to the tax code as a better analogy for things we don’t understand but still talk about).
This goes to con but does not seal the debate.
3. Omniscient: con
Con argues that knowledge can be first person specific. Pro basically drops this down to what was already explained to be less than all knowledge (knowledge of knowledge is not the knowledge itself…). Pro further basically conceded this point with “Also, if non-propositional knowledge is included then God would have knowledge of what it's like to be a sinner. Which he, in keeping with theology, doesn't have.” And yeah, once you’re saying instead of all knowledge it’s only certain knowledge (which is already throwing out the relatable angle), it’s no longer all knowledge.
4. Omnipresent: con
Weird because this started off not too well for con (I basically did not see the confusion as a true paradox), and it initially looked like pro was doing better here (even while throwing the previous two points further under the bus with removing personal knowledge and relationships (God doesn’t exist as we can hope to understand existence…)), but he directly concedes that God “cannot exist within time” which means God is not “present in all places at all times” as the resolution demands.
Regarding the special pleading of “viewing this question through the lens of our own temporal universe misses the actual question,” the goal is to convince us judges that God fits inside rationality as we are capable of understanding it, as opposed to feeding point about silence.
5. Omnipotent: con
Con lists some paradoxes, to which pro insists so long as God doesn’t do those things they aren’t really paradoxes. Had it ended here, I would have called it a tie, but pro coming back with senseless stuff about moving another rock instead to move the unmoveable, it makes the notion of omnipotence seem silly (thus non-rational) instead of merely outside our realm of understanding (I don’t the tax code, but I still file my taxes).
Con: thanks for the Sith bit, it helped me get through this.
6. Omnibenevolent: con
The visual imagery from con went on a bit long, but point taken. Pro insists the examples given are for the greater good (I did not notice even one example connecting to this…), and that torturing and killing a baby in the woods (not saying all evil as con later did, but I am filling in one of his distinct examples) is only subjectively evil, but not really evil in God’s eyes… “morality doesn't actually exist and only exists as a subjective standard for each individual person to consider for themselves” which since God is required to be omnibenevolent, saying benevolence doesn’t exist is conceding that God doesn’t exist (the required four O’s were stated in the description).
7. cosmological and Teleological
This felt a lot like a couple Red Herrings. Neither of these implies God (with the four O’s under discussion). Pro himself called it out “ok, what does this have to do with God?” and then failed to connect it to any personal benevolent being.
Seriously, this late in a debate especially when complaining about not enough characters, is not the time to drag in a dead horse. Neither of these could hope to overpower the rest of the arguments, so they should have been focused on instead.
---
Arguments: con
See above review of key points. Con won this by a large margin (had he only won one of those four major contentions, I would be conflicted… but all four, no doubt remains that he is the victor).
Sources: tied
Not grading these, as I have a pet peeve about URL shorteners which both sides used.
S&G: tied
I advise better use of consistent headings, even if subheadings shift around.
Conduct: tied
Be careful about lying in debates. Not enough of this stood out to quite assign the point, but it hurt credibility distracting from the arguments.
Key example: Con stated, “Pro also disputes that free will would exist in a perfectly moral world. Sure, there are some choices we could not make (like murder), but there are many choices we could make (like whether to be a painter or a philosopher). In such a world, the limited loss of free will is offset by the massive gains in morality” to which pro insisted that in no way addressed free will.
If the site is hurting you, there's no reason to stay.
Don't get me wrong, finish out debates already initiated... I would suggest perhaps using this site to test ideas before committing them to important papers, like a lower level of peer review.
Just read your R1... Well played, well played!
In the google doc I've written replies to the first six of their contentions, plus outlined a simple counter plan. I am not attached to the wording, any of it can be changed or replaced. Unless anyone has any questions for me, I'll check back in a week and tidy up the formatting (such as right now using # for link numbers, in case more get filled in behind).
Started to grade this, got to the point of human beings having a 600 year lifespan in the science section... I'll try again later.
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons
What is the resolution you’re trying to prove?
A religious argument in favor of this resolution just popped into my head. God commands it!
...
Incidentally, determinism would cover it broadly but someone might pull semantics of 'well that would mean it's determined before birth...'
I skimmed this debate while it was still underway, at which time pro’s R1 sources contained this line: “Rebuttal (No particular order yet:)” it no longer being there informs me that documents are being modified post hoc. I can give the benefit of the doubt that no sources were changed out, but if a judge even needs to ponder that is something to avoid.
It was entertaining while it lasted. Most of it took place in the comment section to another debate. If wanting to read it, here's a quick reading order...
Me reviewing a votebomb: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1101/comment_links/15187
The votebomb being deleted: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1101/comment_links/15220
And basically this one forward until #365: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1101/comment_links/15413
I really wish I could share some of the stuff he PMed me from various alt accounts he made.
As the #2 judge on this site, feasibility is often (but not exclusively) vital to proposal debates. I would go so far as to call it an unstated part of BoP. However, if both debaters treat something as possible, I follow their arguments and accept the possibility; but if it becomes a debate argument, the confidence of that argument acts as a negative multiplier to the rest.
I remember a classic Imabench debate about if women can do everything a man can do. Bench challenged the feasibility by pointing out women could not whip their dicks out and f. the bus driver. The opponent conceded that women could not do this, thus conceding that it was infeasible for women to do everything a man can do (in my head I thought of ways they could still do this, and probably do it better... but the debaters made their cases, and that was what I had to grade).
Anyway, to quote the style guide (http://tiny.cc/DebateArt):
"A quality opening round must address the Why and How.
> If the Why is missing, they are easily countered by the lack of benefit.
> If the How is missing, they are easily countered with impracticality and limited resources."
On another note, lightly skimming I saw the sources argument (more debates should do this). I only identified one paywall, but that many broken links seems unlikely to stem from website shuffling (pages move, but this many so fast?).
If you've overtaxed yourself, you can concede debates politely (even if not changing your mind), instead of just forfeiting (which creates a bad reputation).
What was your coded message, and why did you not offer any arguments?
For the audience, would you mind explaining why you believe it was a free win? It's been six months, so you're probably the only person who remembers why you forfeited.
I will say that it would seem reasonable to request a rematch and this former iteration be purged from the site (I've made this suggestion for other debates).
That is a fascinating opinion, given that you haven't read the arguments.
Sorry about that. I'm not one of the moderators. I literally did a word search thought your RFD for "sources," and that was the only part featuring that word.
---RFD (1 of 4)---
Interpreting the resolution:
Nixon > Roosevelt
Gist:
Two great men, but unfortunately the comparison stopped with the negatives of Roosevelt uncontested, and all positives of Nixon unchallenged by any negatives.
1. Civil Rights (1) vs Morals (1)
N. Nixon helped minorities enough to get MLK as a character witness.
R. Roosevelt going to law school and being disabled just doesn’t compare (don’t get me wrong, he was still a badass)
Anti-R. Did not listen to his expert advisers. Engaged in propaganda (didn’t they all?). Racist who sent 122k people to concentration camps, of whom 70k were full citizens; further they were directly robbed by the government and not economically reimbursed.
2. Saved His Political Party (2)
This should have been called unified the nation. The continued presence of any one political organization seems unimportant as people would almost certainly just organize similarly under another banner...
N. In short: He was “a pragmatist who would refuse to let ideology get in the way of progress.”
During the election, he won all but two states, which is quite the appeal to popularity. Even Obama could not unify us that well.
3. Environment (3) vs Environment (4)
N. Creating the EPA is quite the accomplishment. As is the Clean Air Act.
R. Ending the dust bowl seems like a divine intervention.
---RFD (2 of 4)---
4. Economics (4) vs Economics (2)
N. “reduced the deficit by over 70%” is amazing. Getting us off the gold standard is a ballsy move I cannot imagine modern presidents pulling off were it still in place.
R. Getting our money back into banks where it can enjoy the multiplier effect of spending (something not spelled out in the debate, but still worth mentioning for refinement of future arguments), is beyond words. Ending child labor and having a minimum wage, are also amazing (I believe N. raised the minimum wage, so neat to see how one followed in the footsteps of the other).
Anti-R. Child labor was already low (mostly rural, where they were often working family farms...), stuff about blacks (it’s dropped so pro gets it, but I feel the need to point out this not being a good interpretation o the data, even if utilized well as an argument). Ended up causing more unemployment worsening the great depression.
---RFD (3 of 4)---
5. Foreign Policy (5) vs Foreign Policy (2) and Superpower (5)
The superpower sounds good, but it is foreign policy worded for impact.
N. Ended one of our worst wars, got trade with the second world resumed, etc.
R. Got us into a necessary war, and presumably shaped the founding of the U.N. as a tool for the USA.
Anti-R. Speaking of WWII on the moral point, it came up that he rejected 1k Jewish refugees fleeing the holocaust, sending them back where many died. Plus empowered Russia with covering up some of their warcrimes, making them an increased threat to the USA. ... Pro continued by linking him to causing Pearl Harbor (on NPR I’ve listened to some stuff about them trying to declare war just before the attack, but us intentionally delaying their declaration to play victim... Not excusing their actions, just pointing out a funny historical detail about our role). And on the superpower note (I hoped this was coming), the simple fact that we did not have fighting on our soil causing our comparative economic strength, to which whomever happens to be president at the time does not get credit.
---RFD (4 of 4)---
---
Arguments: pro
See above review of key points. Honestly, I felt that just on the strengths Nixon would win this, but his negatives are within living memory so may have cost him worse in R3 (I can’t imagine what would compare to the concentration camps, but something could have been argued as worse).
Sources: tied
I really dislike when things are posted outside the debate. I strongly suggest highlighting the intent to do that within the debate description... Actually I really suggest just increasing the character limit to hold them (and probably using a few less to get the gist across...).
S&G: tied
Both were fine.
Conduct: pro
Two rounds forfeited, vs the source issue... Had con raised the character limit violation, I would leave this tied, as is I’ll discount one of the forfeits, but that leaves a forfeit standing.
In case anyone is curious, here's a snapshot of my RFD draft at the end of R2...
1 Civil Rights (1) vs Morals (1)
N. Nixon helped minorities enough to get MLK as a character witness.
R. Roosevelt going to law school and being disabled just doesn’t compare (don’t get me wrong, he was still a badass)
2 Saved His Political Party (2) vs
This should have been called unified the nation. The continued presence of any one political organization seems pretty unimportant as people would just organize similarly under another banner...
N. In short: He was “a pragmatist who would refuse to let ideology get in the way of progress.”
During the election, he won all but two states, which is quite the appeal to popularity. Even Obama could not unify us that well.
R.
3 Environment (3) vs Environment (4)
N. Creating the EPA is quite the accomplishment. As is the Clean Air Act.
R. Ending the dust bowl seems like a divine intervention.
4 Economics (4) vs Economics (2)
N. “reduced the deficit by over 70%” is amazing. Getting us off the gold standard is a ballsy move I cannot imagine modern presidents pulling off were it still in place.
R. Getting our money back into banks where it can enjoy the multiplier effect of spending (something not spelled out in the debate, but still worth mentioning for refinement of future arguments), is beyond words. Ending child labor and having a minimum wage, are also amazing (I believe N. raised the minimum wage, so neat to see how one followed in the footsteps of the other).
5 Foreign Policy (5) vs Foreign Policy (2) and Superpower (5)
The superpower sounds good, but it is foreign policy worded for impact.
N. Ended one of our worst wars, got trade with the second world resumed, etc.
R. Got us into a necessary war, and presumably shaped the founding of the U.N. as a tool for the USA.
As stated in the removal notice, Dis' vote may be recast without refinement if merely by not assigning source points.
I highly advise if giving more than argument points, to single out the other areas with headings for quick review (makes it easy for the admin, and easy to double check yourself in case you forget something). I have taken to ending my debates with hand feeding voters samples of sources (at least if I believe I earned the point)...
For review, what was not enough to award sources:
>Because the U.S. healthcare system is not currently nationalized it is hard to say how much a nationalized system would cost without performing some sort of in-depth study on the topic. This is what I expected to find when pro said he had sources backing up his claim but since this number appears to be simply pulled out of thin this point is to be disregarded.
What was enough (actually overkill... but compare both sides, and name at least one specific source):
>Sources: Con
>So con repeatedly used a specific source which I am highly biased against. While I assumed I would be leaving this tied due to my bias against con, his source execution ended up overwhelming the strength of the bias.
>Both used a ton of sources, pro stabbed himself in the foot by just throwing them at the end of the rounds, which prevents judges from quickly checking details within them while reading the arguments. This becomes even more important when there’s raw numbers within them.
>Con gained some ground by catching pro misrepresenting details from a source. I’d still leave it tied there, but...
>The source on increased deaths in Canada was incredible, particularly how it was quoted within the debate to prove points.
>Also see: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1101/comment_links/15214
Trent, Udit's behavior thus far is classic slave account.
If that is the case and it was a simple misunderstanding, talk things over with the admins. They can explain things and delete this debate.
Would you mind clarify your point in relation to this debate?
In case anyone was reading the off topic comments for entertainment, King_8 continued it with an emotional outpouring about it on another debate (https://www.debateart.com/debates/1137/comment_links/15624):
"They apparently think that I have some alt account voting in my favor which simply isn't true. No concrete proof, just assumptions. He's just my friend and he counted Franklin's vote but Ragnar spread lies about me to bsh1. So dont pay attention to any of that. That has nothing to do with me. People just love to push my buttons on here and be problematic because they are unhappy with their selves. So now because of that, I'm being banned. All because of Ragnar. I don't mind though because these bias mods never come to my aid when unfair things that does not go with CoC happens to me. Don't care because I planned on quitting this site. I don't deal with people like this. Sorry for the inappropriate behavior, thanks for the debate."
Fitting that I say this on a rap battle...
If his word is to be believed (not tracking down the individual denials, but https://www.debateart.com/debates/1101?open_tab=comments), it was neither a friend or his nor an alt account; thus it was most likely his mother whom is his role model teaching him to pull things like this when he loses.
Thanks for the debate.
If you want to get good at this topic, try arguing from the other side. Once you learn why the other side has valid conviction, it's easy to find the holes in their case.
An objective waste of time, as it's DDO.
Sorry for that distraction from your debate. I should not have engaged, but he should be gone now...
Wylted:
I fully agree with you on "It is better to not be undefeated as silly as that sounds."
Pink:
I suspect the reason Wylted did so well was your opening comments pissed him off, encouraging him to put in extra effort. It can be a useful tactic against the weak willed, as exemplified by me recently getting someone confused as to which of their alt accounts they posted something...
You're welcome. I don't normally vote on these as I'm an elitist jerk who insists they are not real debates... However, countering lame attempts to cheat and penalizing conduct still apply.
Your analogy would work had someone bumped into you or looked at you the wrong way and you responded by punching them in the face. Remember, your retaliation is 7 points worse than the damage done on a 7 point scale. And you say that's how your mother raised you... Someone hurts your precious feelings and you respond with violence.
>"Pink retaliated vote against you in some of your debates, so you know he's full of shit. Yet and still you are taking up for his inexcusable behavior." ... "I complained because of bullsh*t votes people gave me. Not people being 'better voters than me'"
As seen, a user who shares your name who you are now denying association with (the first quote) made the complaint about Pink's superior voting habits not being complained about (reminder, his retaliation was to cast fair votes).
>"I'm not asking to get coddled at all."
See: half your messages in here.
>"I've had plenty role-models in my life besides my mother. I'm also an adult so I'm not some kid. ... Don't ever disrespect me"
Then act like an adult instead an of overgrown brat. Don't whine about how "bias/unfair treatment" as an excuse to commit objectively worse things, then play whataboutism pretending you should have impunity to do whatever you want as if your parents failed to teach you discipline and responsibility for your failings. You complain that other people are not offended by other people being better voters than you. Oh and quit the site because people don't coddle you, but fail to ever leave because you want to complain some more about not getting coddled. ... Need I go on? This is not evidence of your mother being "a great role model," you've cast quite the opposite picture of her.
>"Rap battles don't have to be so formal."
You're right that they don't, but as long as they stay informal they are unmoderated. Solutions to your exact problem have been offered, but instead of using them or moving on, you cast 7point vote bombs in retaliation for 0 point mild nuisances... Another thing you could do is use the built in Judicial decision voting system; moderators will still not be involved, but since they're fake news or whatever you probably would prefer to not have them.
I guess you're not leaving after all. I was not replying because we already said our goodbyes...
To the most important points: No, I meant exactly what I wrote. As someone with intellectual integrity, this is usually the case. ... Also you desperately need better role-models in your life.
As for your problem of wanting troll debates to be judged like real debates: Have you considered making them real debates? It could be along the lines of 'Resolution: King_8 is a better rapper than opponent. R1 and R2 are raps, R3 onward is normative arguments about which raps were superior by the following standards... Note: This is not a troll debate or a rap battle, it is a debate about raping ability.'
That is a very high character limit...
To repeat myself: "Did you miss ... The lack of any damage done by voting ties? Or the lack of any relevance towards the shit vote in question on this debate?"
>"it should be taken seriously and be at the same standards as other debates"
If you believed this, you would have complained about the vote (https://www.debateart.com/debates/1049/vote_links/2559) for failing to meet the rigorous standards expected of votes on real debates. For starters, it lacked comparative analyse on each of the categories voted, which is one of the basic requirements when voting on real debates.
>"crazy..."
Before you continue on this site, you should really read the following two pages:
1. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346
2. https://www.debateart.com/rules
>"bias and unfair treatment."
Do you really expect a line like that to gain you anything from people who aren't your parents? Maybe we'll say 'that poor baby. Everyone stop what you'rte doing, a baby needs pity!' But it's highly unlikely.
>"GameLord is my alternate account?"
Nice strawperson. As seen "no zero sense unless the vote bomb countered was from a personal friend or alt account." Which the trends suggest "personal friend," but still leave the primary possibility of "zero sense."
Where are your complaints about his vote bomb in your favor? See vote: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1120/vote_links/2711
It is a vote which was intended to harm the outcome of the debate, thus creating real damage. That you say it had nothing to do with you, while mimicking your behaviors, does give weight (not conclusive weight) to the third possibility that he's an alt account.
As for Pink's votes... The places to discuss those in depth are where he cast the votes. I will however say of him related to this debate that he retaliated my voting against him by voting on some of my debates (I objectively won those debates, and as an adult that was how he voted).
Good luck where-ever you go.
Thanks for voting!
I made a categorical error on my vote, would you mind deleting it so that I can correct that?
---RFD (1 of 6) ... Incidentally, each post can hold up to 2000 characters. ---
Interpreting the resolution:
This debate changed titles again and again, but this final one they settled on looks vague enough to get the general intent across. Pro wins if the debate shows an increase in Socialism type polices (X) would have greater benefit than harm (Y), con otherwise (not Y).
Gist:
Con misrepresents pro’s case by acting like it’s an all or nothing deal, and we intuitively know what pro meant, but pro does not sufficiently refute this (he argues that absolute socialism isn’t the socialism he’s arguing in favor of, but that misses that an increase in socialism is taking steps toward absolute socialism... It’s a slippery slope fallacy, but an incredibly well executed one). I’m quite surprised to not see any mention of the bell curve for gains and losses. Con also makes very good use of syllogism to prove that socialism hurts more than it gains.
1. Q&A
Pro believes that con’s political beliefs determine if more socialism would be good or bad, con insists this is off topic... I am going to agree with con here, as much as a debate could be had on if libertarian beliefs contain socialist policies or whatever, here it’s just fodder for tu quoque fallacies. ... And they happen way later in the debate and keep coming back: “logically inconsistent and sort of hypocritical” +1000 maybe 2000? Characters more I am just skipping.
2.1 Universal Healthcare
Affordability: The end of pro’s R1 on this was weird, since con did not raise the challenge on that, nothing can be “debunked.” Anyway, pro shows a small cost decrease. Con briefly addresses this inside one of his points, unduly twisting pro’s words into that cost decrease being the creation of the cost (off topic: reminds me of AOC vs Amazon), pro then moves the goalpost by claiming different numbers than earlier (a disappearing $0.35 trillion is a lot), while not damning, it lowers the credibility of the argument.
Univ.: Pro claims longer life expectancy (and cites a support point for the affordability angle, which really should have been under the affordability heading).
Quality: Some apples to oranges comparisons,
2.2 Universal Healthcare continued later...
Life Expectancy (fat): Con, your source on diet says 36.2%, which rounds to 36%, not 37%. As I corrected pro, “while not damning, it lowers the credibility of the argument.” ... Anyway this ended up being a good contention just on entertainment value (note to all debaters: give us judges a reason to continue!). ... “This is a very common argument made and is a very horrible one to make.” This is a pet peeve of mine, but don’t complain about how horrible something is, just show it. A lot of replies here fell flat due to the source giving the index, and pro citing Germany as a counter example which does not even make it onto the top ten...
Deaths: Best use of a source I have seen in a long time. Con brings up more deaths would happen due to wait times, as apparently happened in Canada. He also mentions an alternate plan, which I’m not the biggest fan of (imaginary worlds where shit works out that way...), but other potential voters will no doubt eat up. Pro counters that Canada is not a good example, but as they’re culturally the best match for us I do not buy that; more so since this did not change the numbers (even while lowering the confidence; that leads to a lower expected increased mortality rate, not the absence of one as was asserted back in R1). ... So got to say it, pro could have gained some ground here with inverting the meaning of the death rate, as we’d have a lower carrying cost and higher average quality of life with these people dead (awful I know, but this would be logically valid and consistent with statistical arguments raised by con).
3. lower standard of living
P1: I rather like this opening, as it makes the judges feel involved via their common knowledge of places like Venezuela... It then dragged on and on, repeatedly with a sole source making itself highly vulnerable (all the eggs in one basket). Con’s counter was decent but needed to be expanded and perhaps cite examples from the source for the socialist well to do counties. On his trade comment, he hints at the best argument he could make (that there’s a golden level of socialist policies which would be better, before tipping into tyranny) but does not actually make the point. Con next drops the point claiming “statistics to back this poor hypothesis up which don’t need to be debunked since I already proved the hypothesis to be wrong” missing the fact that they feed each other; if the evidence is true (or unchallenged) then I have little reason to doubt the conclusion drawn by the evidence, even if there was some small challenge to said conclusion. “If we actually delve into these countries it appears they aren’t [socialistic]” an example here would have been fantastic.