Thanks for voting, and for the feedback. Hope you get some good sleep...
---1 of 3---
And yes, I of course hope you reweigh things with the damage from sources factored in (it's easy, as I outlined them at the end of each round, and that pro's evidence often directly opposed his case went uncontested).
---2 of 3---
Pro-lifers chanting "abortion is murder" is a pet peeve of mine (and similar for anti-meat protesters), much like pro's opinion of pro-choicers saying "you hate women."
Both of these come up in debates too often, and when the person making the claim specifically uses the legal definition, I point out that they haven't proven abortion is the illegal killing of a human to prove that it's murder. I assume were I to have pulled the "you hate women" pro would have pointed out a similar lack of evidence toward that precise conclusion. In R3 he conceded that it is not murder, which was the contention. Were he to have used to more mellow claim that it's comparable to murder, that would be the start to a potentially constructive conversation.
On "Health" I indeed dropped the stillborn sub-point, but I literally flipped how much of pro's evidence on the main point? Then supported this one with the constitution prohibiting inflicting potential death on them (some points crossover).
---3 of 3---
On "Slavery," my main evidence used the legal definitions (as this was a debate about law), as seen in block-text in R2.
On "constitution" I am surprised this one is not weighted higher, given that this is a legal debate, and pro's own evidence proved that abortion should remain legal according to the foundation of law itself (it was his late debate attempt at a silver bullet, but it shot his case instead of mine).
I fully admit to being confused by the decision to award pro a bonus round (or penalize me? same outcome). I'm a firm believer in dismissing any brand new points, and decreasing the weight given, but to outright assign without warning an unequal number of argument rounds on principle seems odd.
1. Having debated Tiwaz (https://www.debateart.com/debates/866), I totally understand why you'd ban him from participating.
2. You are not actually waiving a round by writing the description, so there's no need for pro to waive the last round. I'm guessing that's a copy paste from DDO, but even there it would be R1 for acceptance only. Worse, you've created a setup that does not allow the person to defend their case.
3. The resolution is deeply slanted, perhaps to the point of being a truism (thus troll debate), due to using an absolute qualifier ("completely"). To give an example; an atomic bomb detonating within a populated city is not completely evil via the definitions.
When you create a debate, you can actually make it about a book chapter or article, and pre-specify in the description that your first round will be entirely a quote from said material... I do however suggest retiring your current account, to get a fresh start free from the reputation you've earned.
Part of pro's case finally makes sense to me. I treated that as a self evident intuitive leap once the price tag was in place (to me $12K is a very large amount...).
We voters are an inherently subjective measure. If you feel you won or lost, a few outside opinions need not change that.
Plus nukes are scary, expect voters to be biased against them. Had your R2 arguments been a little stronger, I suspect people would have voted differently.
I assume it's collaborative. I suggest using a couple shared google docs, for a quick start you can make a copy of this one and then share (with full edit permissions) to your team: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DMjSk6ylGArN4920junXXukjr0czi6i1-8ONvG2UhEc/edit?usp=sharing
I'm fine with helping out either, or even both sides.
A few quick things:
1. While this debate need not be USA specific, for clarity it should pick one country for the framework.
2. There are various different types of taxes, but all of them ultimately raise the price consumers pay (Socialist countries have tried to get around this, it leads to collapse).
3. It is very easy for taxes to be regressive, in that they charge the poor a higher percentage of their earnings than the rich (AKA victimizing those who can't afford it). Cigarettes and alcohol are notorious for this.
4. What is under discussion is a Sin Tax. Sin Taxes in the USA cannot merely target something they opposes, but must also be written to be raising funds for some specific social good.
Attacking someone's character if they disagree with you, just creates the fact that you've used the most well known logical fallacy; it does not prove that by disagreeing with you they're Literally Hitler or anything else (this is an example of hyperbole, to clarify the problem with your words).
If you're going to keep debating, I highly suggest familiarizing yourself with the most common logical fallacies. When caught committing them, you undermine your own claims (voters are not immune to the fallacy fallacy). For Ad Hominems: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem that website features 23 more, with fast and easy to understand explanations.
If no one has voted on this in a couple days, remind me and I'll vote. ... Also in case no one has said it, atheism isn't a religion (surprised con did not raise this point).
Left Wing. There are many competing definitions for it, so unless you want to debate which definition is best instead of the topic, it should be pre-defined.
Sounds like something that might be better handled on the forums (the short description has information on what Anko is looking for).
For a decent sample of the more sane version of the sides, I had a recent debate on it: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1024
If you want to know more about the less sane versions, I can give you information on how conservative politicians are trying to increase teen pregnancy and abortion rates so they can publicly pretend to cry about it.
I've had good luck with all formatting from google docs transferring over (except those highlighted indented "quotes"). Mixed results with word. But glad to know everything except hyperlinks will transfer from word to docs to debateart.
"Four or five moments. That's all it takes to be a [racist]. People think you wake up a [racist], brush your teeth a [racist], ejaculate into a soap dispenser a [racist]. But now, being a [racist], it's only a few moments. Few moments doing the ugly stuff no one else will do."
I'm happy to clarify any point on my vote. The process of weighting the three contentions pro won against the zero con won, lead to the conclusion that pro won the debate.
I know the FSM is a weird one, given that he relies so much less on comedy...
In all seriousness, when my faith in God peaks (I alternate between atheism and Catholicism) is when I look to the FSM the most. If we forget that we don't have the answers and thinking we do is silly, we're doing it wrong.
Welcome to the site. I suggest familiarizing yourself with what styles can be done here (as opposed to what could be done at DDO): https://tiny.cc/DebateArt
Quote bricks are good for lengthy quotes, but most of the time I suggest formatting which does not add so much space above and below.
tiny.cc/DebateArt
I did start an analysis, but I see how little time in left, and honestly don't believe it's fair to knowingly cast last minute votes without some compelling reason.
Not actually sure which way I would give arguments (likely sources to pro, his analysis of the census.gov data tips this). Key problem that has made me not vote way earlier, is that I can't quite get the penalties out of my head if I don't automatically give arguments to the pro side. I've had stalkers on these sites before, and don't care for any repeats of that.
Closing rounds are a weird thing, because they are both where we want to give everything, but also where we should be putting in the least effort (most things of consequence should have already been said).
A tactic some unmentionables use is a Final Round Blitzkrieg, which is holding off arguments until the other side truly cannot respond. I advice judges to dismiss these for being inorganic to the debate.
I got challenged to a weird informal continuation of this (I've already dropped out, but you might enjoy the counters to my case): https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1936
It could be argued they did not kill L3, merely enslaved and never mentioned her again...
As for the villains from the prequels, I disagree with calling them badly acted. Two of them had some great talent (not sure about the CGI guy), the fault lies with the director.
We debaters proved Australia doesn't exist, so pro can totally win this with the right sources.
Ok, this resolution would now be an easy win for con... Might have gone a little too far (or an error came up with all the editing).
Thanks for voting, and for the feedback. Hope you get some good sleep...
---1 of 3---
And yes, I of course hope you reweigh things with the damage from sources factored in (it's easy, as I outlined them at the end of each round, and that pro's evidence often directly opposed his case went uncontested).
---2 of 3---
Pro-lifers chanting "abortion is murder" is a pet peeve of mine (and similar for anti-meat protesters), much like pro's opinion of pro-choicers saying "you hate women."
Both of these come up in debates too often, and when the person making the claim specifically uses the legal definition, I point out that they haven't proven abortion is the illegal killing of a human to prove that it's murder. I assume were I to have pulled the "you hate women" pro would have pointed out a similar lack of evidence toward that precise conclusion. In R3 he conceded that it is not murder, which was the contention. Were he to have used to more mellow claim that it's comparable to murder, that would be the start to a potentially constructive conversation.
On "Health" I indeed dropped the stillborn sub-point, but I literally flipped how much of pro's evidence on the main point? Then supported this one with the constitution prohibiting inflicting potential death on them (some points crossover).
---3 of 3---
On "Slavery," my main evidence used the legal definitions (as this was a debate about law), as seen in block-text in R2.
On "constitution" I am surprised this one is not weighted higher, given that this is a legal debate, and pro's own evidence proved that abortion should remain legal according to the foundation of law itself (it was his late debate attempt at a silver bullet, but it shot his case instead of mine).
I fully admit to being confused by the decision to award pro a bonus round (or penalize me? same outcome). I'm a firm believer in dismissing any brand new points, and decreasing the weight given, but to outright assign without warning an unequal number of argument rounds on principle seems odd.
People don't know about mixed markets... I don't want to believe that, but I do.
Anyway, best of luck to you on this debate.
A few things about your setup:
1. Having debated Tiwaz (https://www.debateart.com/debates/866), I totally understand why you'd ban him from participating.
2. You are not actually waiving a round by writing the description, so there's no need for pro to waive the last round. I'm guessing that's a copy paste from DDO, but even there it would be R1 for acceptance only. Worse, you've created a setup that does not allow the person to defend their case.
3. The resolution is deeply slanted, perhaps to the point of being a truism (thus troll debate), due to using an absolute qualifier ("completely"). To give an example; an atomic bomb detonating within a populated city is not completely evil via the definitions.
When you create a debate, you can actually make it about a book chapter or article, and pre-specify in the description that your first round will be entirely a quote from said material... I do however suggest retiring your current account, to get a fresh start free from the reputation you've earned.
It's been two weeks without getting even one vote yet, so bump.
Part of pro's case finally makes sense to me. I treated that as a self evident intuitive leap once the price tag was in place (to me $12K is a very large amount...).
Who except for the very religious do you expect to argue against this?
Weird to say it isn't a religious debate, when the short description reads: "God supports this"
We voters are an inherently subjective measure. If you feel you won or lost, a few outside opinions need not change that.
Plus nukes are scary, expect voters to be biased against them. Had your R2 arguments been a little stronger, I suspect people would have voted differently.
It must have already been addressed, but why are there two of these? And are they true duplicates?
Thanks for voting.
I assume it's collaborative. I suggest using a couple shared google docs, for a quick start you can make a copy of this one and then share (with full edit permissions) to your team: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DMjSk6ylGArN4920junXXukjr0czi6i1-8ONvG2UhEc/edit?usp=sharing
You two should debate this topic as a debate, rather than as comments here... Or heck, maybe a changed topic to Africa should invade the USA?
Sure thing.
I'm fine with helping out either, or even both sides.
A few quick things:
1. While this debate need not be USA specific, for clarity it should pick one country for the framework.
2. There are various different types of taxes, but all of them ultimately raise the price consumers pay (Socialist countries have tried to get around this, it leads to collapse).
3. It is very easy for taxes to be regressive, in that they charge the poor a higher percentage of their earnings than the rich (AKA victimizing those who can't afford it). Cigarettes and alcohol are notorious for this.
4. What is under discussion is a Sin Tax. Sin Taxes in the USA cannot merely target something they opposes, but must also be written to be raising funds for some specific social good.
Attacking someone's character if they disagree with you, just creates the fact that you've used the most well known logical fallacy; it does not prove that by disagreeing with you they're Literally Hitler or anything else (this is an example of hyperbole, to clarify the problem with your words).
If you're going to keep debating, I highly suggest familiarizing yourself with the most common logical fallacies. When caught committing them, you undermine your own claims (voters are not immune to the fallacy fallacy). For Ad Hominems: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem that website features 23 more, with fast and easy to understand explanations.
As the users most active in abortion debates, would any of you mind giving feedback and/or voting?
>"If you don't agree, then you are simply racist."
Ad Hominem attacks in the description are never a good way to start a debate.
If no one has voted on this in a couple days, remind me and I'll vote. ... Also in case no one has said it, atheism isn't a religion (surprised con did not raise this point).
Left Wing. There are many competing definitions for it, so unless you want to debate which definition is best instead of the topic, it should be pre-defined.
Definitions?
Sounds like something that might be better handled on the forums (the short description has information on what Anko is looking for).
For a decent sample of the more sane version of the sides, I had a recent debate on it: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1024
If you want to know more about the less sane versions, I can give you information on how conservative politicians are trying to increase teen pregnancy and abortion rates so they can publicly pretend to cry about it.
I've had good luck with all formatting from google docs transferring over (except those highlighted indented "quotes"). Mixed results with word. But glad to know everything except hyperlinks will transfer from word to docs to debateart.
You might want to also clarify which level of education this is for. But either way, you've closed the major loophole.
You should refine this for precise class and limits, otherwise someone will just say the teacher should have one.
Given that number of animals that the bible calls unclean, do you think God made them all intelligently?
"Four or five moments. That's all it takes to be a [racist]. People think you wake up a [racist], brush your teeth a [racist], ejaculate into a soap dispenser a [racist]. But now, being a [racist], it's only a few moments. Few moments doing the ugly stuff no one else will do."
I'm happy to clarify any point on my vote. The process of weighting the three contentions pro won against the zero con won, lead to the conclusion that pro won the debate.
I know the FSM is a weird one, given that he relies so much less on comedy...
In all seriousness, when my faith in God peaks (I alternate between atheism and Catholicism) is when I look to the FSM the most. If we forget that we don't have the answers and thinking we do is silly, we're doing it wrong.
Neato!
Welcome to the site. I suggest familiarizing yourself with what styles can be done here (as opposed to what could be done at DDO): https://tiny.cc/DebateArt
It would seem you need to define the general land area to which the two-state solution is to take place... lol
25,000 characters... this is planned to be a very long one.
Quote bricks are good for lengthy quotes, but most of the time I suggest formatting which does not add so much space above and below.
tiny.cc/DebateArt
There comes a point where you should probably move into the argument section of the debate.
someone remind me in a couple days and I'll vote. Started an analysis tonight, but sleep beckons.
Given that you were already reading some of this debate, would you mind voting on it at some point?
I did start an analysis, but I see how little time in left, and honestly don't believe it's fair to knowingly cast last minute votes without some compelling reason.
Not actually sure which way I would give arguments (likely sources to pro, his analysis of the census.gov data tips this). Key problem that has made me not vote way earlier, is that I can't quite get the penalties out of my head if I don't automatically give arguments to the pro side. I've had stalkers on these sites before, and don't care for any repeats of that.
Closing rounds are a weird thing, because they are both where we want to give everything, but also where we should be putting in the least effort (most things of consequence should have already been said).
A tactic some unmentionables use is a Final Round Blitzkrieg, which is holding off arguments until the other side truly cannot respond. I advice judges to dismiss these for being inorganic to the debate.
What did I just read?
I got challenged to a weird informal continuation of this (I've already dropped out, but you might enjoy the counters to my case): https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1936
Understood. Harder BoP for you if this is taken strictly so serious, but it still can be done...
Even if he does respond, anything other than a concession will be dismissed by judges.
This is my favorite style of troll debate. Something outrageously stupid, but then well argued as satire.
Regardless of how the voting goes, I suggest remaking this debate with refinements. You clearly did not get the intended debate on the subject.
It could be argued they did not kill L3, merely enslaved and never mentioned her again...
As for the villains from the prequels, I disagree with calling them badly acted. Two of them had some great talent (not sure about the CGI guy), the fault lies with the director.