Removed the following vote by user request.
It is conduct only to con.
It also piggybacks another vote (two or more votes could have the same reasoning, but should still point to it individually with each voters words to describe the matter).
I cannot promise they'll never be removed, but intuitively I support single point protest votes.
---
Owen_T
07.07.2024 09:07PM
I agree with Baggins completely. American debater was, in my opinion, completely justified to drop out of this debate.
https://southpark.cc.com/video-clips/444m6e/south-park-stu-dent-ath-o-leets
Was correctly labeled, but should have been on the source list (not getting it there, is how another also got called 11)
https://www.npr.org/2022/08/18/1111344810/abortion-ban-states-social-safety-net-health-outcomes
Should have been 12, with its reference updated to match.
If you had to pick just one, it would be this one (as the other was just witticism from Trey Parker and Matt Stone).
I'm getting tired, but got most of a vote prepped... I am of course curious if Wyited can take back the initiative in the final round.
Ones rights end where they interfere with another, simple but solid opening.
"my argument is, they get what they deserve."
*facepalm*
---
Pew research, great source; 7 point lead from it... Quite significant, but sure, maybe not overwhelming as stated.
The NPR one was less effective. It begs the question of if it's the same on the other side, which would just cancel out the impacts.
Pathos appeal of think of the children is a bad one when I see it, but most voters will be moved.
Wyited wants to ban midgets, he talks for roughly an hour about just that... Thankfully it was a very short hour at like four minutes, and most of it was disguised talking about the topic.
---
Con pushes back on the Pew research, with astutely valid points (I'm a data scientist, so the actual numbers have shined through this whole time).
The women voting for Biden bit is another case of taking things a bit too far (granted, one should during a debate). It's another data point to build a picture; but it of course does not override all others. And yes, indeed the cause could be misunderstood. And yup, Pew is a better source, even if not the only.
Regarding our earlier conversation, this vote falls less into the problem areas of voting based on outside content. It's a conduct only protest vote, not trying to have any impact on the outcome. If reported it'll be deleted, but then you could just make it your own vote with your own description and interpretation of the facts of the debate and revote with that (regardless of it they're similar to another vote; especially on a debate like this there really won't be that much variance).
A vote may reference the existence of other votes, but should never feel that those other votes are the reason for the allotments assigned.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#based-on-outside-content
This should intuitively be true due to fairness. Each debater should be finding just the other debater; if someone else makes a great point against either, it's firmly outside the field of battle, so it may be noted, but should not shift any weighing.
The points are random in my mind for lack of analysis (which I'm sure were in the other vote).
Your vote falls short of the standards. Primarily for being a piggy-backed vote, but also for such issues as seemingly random point assignments. Were the debate ongoing, the vote would be removed.
Reason:
Pro presented tangible written arguments that were coherent and traceable. Although videos may not be against the rules officially, they lack reliability for judging a debate or presenting a case. Indeed, they might be deemed plagiarism as Con is relying on others' arguments instead of formulating their own. Ultimately, videos might serve as sources, but they do not constitute arguments in themselves. Consequently, I award all votes to Pro, including for legibility, since Con contributed minimally to the debate.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: TheUnderdog // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded:
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
In essence, this vote was just too vague... This can be avoided in future by just commenting on the core contention (and the main counterpoint or the lack thereof), listing a single source you found important (if voting sources), saying what conduct violation distracted you (if voting conduct)... You need not write a thesis, but some minimal level of detail is required to verify knowledge of what you're grading.
Arguments must always be reviewed even if left a tie (in which case less detail is required, but some reason for said tie based on the debate content must still be comprehensible within the vote).
Arguments go to the side that, within the context of the debate rounds, successfully affirms (vote pro) or negates (vote con) the resolution. Ties are possible, particularly with pre-agreed competing claims, but in most cases failing to affirm the resolution means pro loses by default.
Weighing entails analyzing the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments and their impacts against another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.
Sources are optional and if awarded require a strong quality lead. Sources go to the side that better supported their case with relevant outside evidence and/or analysis thereof. If both sides have done their research due diligence, these points are usually tied.
A side with unreliable sources may be penalized, but the voter must specify why the sources were unreliable enough to diminish their own case (such as if the other side called attention to the flaws, thereby engaging with sources in a more effective manner with impacts to arguments; thereby flipping the source and harming the opposing argument).
**************************************************
I just noticed that there's a long argument window, so my busy schedule would probably allow it... So it's tempting
And yes, I know I'm trying to be done with debating, but abortion debates call to me... I don't even take them that seriously, in the last one I used Xenomorphs as a (weak and just there for the lols) argument for forced abortions.
-> when I insist I have a right to free speech Constitutionally
Does that apply to writing and other forms of expression as well? Or literal just to what our forefathers wrote, the spoken word? Also do any instances of 'man' and such refer to woman equally?
Also please add your definition of constitutional right into the description.
You may also want to add a few details of the types of abortion you are applying this to. Human (obviously), before the end of the third trimester, but second trimester forward or conception forward or what? And are you wishing your ban to allow exceptions for instances of rape, health issues (hopefully at least ectopic pregnancies), or anything else?
The studio began pre-production on Alien 2, then James Cameron became a big deal. Anything with his name on it that they could find got the green light (some were never finished, like 1994's Spider-Man... Actually, apparently that one was not finished because his name was on it, and that got the rights to the character disputed). It turned out he had written a spec script for Aliens, so Alien 2 was canceled in favor of it.
When the time came to make a sequel to Aliens, there were any number of fantastic scripts out there (William Gibson's being my favorite). But the studio realized they could save a tiny bit of money by using a script they had already purchased... Thus Alien 2 was retrofitted into Alien 3, with all changes from Aliens having to be done away with in the first minute or two of the movie.
The shittiness of what the studio did was so bad that Michael Biehn (Hicks) successfully sued to keep his likeness out of the finished product. That Hicks survived is largely considered canon, and he was nearly in Alien 5 by Neill Blomkamp; but Ridley Scott shat his pants and gave the studio Alien Covenant in exchange for them not making Alien 5.
They are. That's actually why I looked at this debate, due to said reports. However, we don't get a notification or anything, so there's some time variance on when we'll see it.
FYI, counter votes are considered vote bombs. It’s not particularly problematic on a “debate” like this, but for future debates please just report the offending vote (and if tight on time, tag the moderators in the comment section).
Right now someone could defeat you by showing some political motivation.
Add the qualifier “primarily” into the resolution, and you should get the debate you want. The other side won’t win by merely showing prosecutors voted democrat, but you won’t win by showing something equally minor. It still favors you, but there’s work to be put in.
It was good facing you, and I hope you see more of your debates in future. If you'd ever like assistance with the setup for a debate, please don't hesitate to ask.
Have you seen The Good Place? The Trolly Problem episode ends with the perfect rebuttal on this topic. When a doctor is faced with being forced to murder one person to harvest organs for five (five who he ran over with the trolly earlier in the episode), he puts his foot down and refused no matter the consequences for him. As a doctor he took the Hippocratic Oath, and killing the one would be a harm even if it resulted in the net benefit of more people living.
That and morals are easy when there's no dilemma, if we back down from them every time sticking to them is the harder path, it proves the weakness of our convictions. While maybe efforts should be taken to force a doctor under rare circumstances, the doctor should not give in if being forced.
There are tactical advantages to it, but for growing in skill being at a disadvantage is better.
On the other hand, instigating a debate without any easily exploitable loopholes is a lot of work. Then there’s no assurance anyone accepts the challenge.
> Airborne combat medics are movable between locations.
Only with great effort, but add the weight of an extra couple degrees (with frames we’re talking about as much as two pounds!) and I’m not sure it’d be possible without assistance of a crane.
Plus, as a lawyer I know pointed out, if someone adds value to a business, they are a fixture of that business and aren’t allowed to ever quit; and the 13th amendment doesn’t apply because the involuntary servitude is being forced…
(I didn’t say it’s a lawyer I respect; rather he’s one I’m going to crush)
So many kritiks come to mind from that title...
I don't know, they seem pretty quiet to me... 🔕
But are they sound?
I think of them more as Earth's Gemini.
There's kritiks which could be run, but most likely someone will accept without a plan.
Removed the following vote by user request.
It is conduct only to con.
It also piggybacks another vote (two or more votes could have the same reasoning, but should still point to it individually with each voters words to describe the matter).
I cannot promise they'll never be removed, but intuitively I support single point protest votes.
---
Owen_T
07.07.2024 09:07PM
I agree with Baggins completely. American debater was, in my opinion, completely justified to drop out of this debate.
My apologies for any difficulty.
https://southpark.cc.com/video-clips/444m6e/south-park-stu-dent-ath-o-leets
Was correctly labeled, but should have been on the source list (not getting it there, is how another also got called 11)
https://www.npr.org/2022/08/18/1111344810/abortion-ban-states-social-safety-net-health-outcomes
Should have been 12, with its reference updated to match.
If you had to pick just one, it would be this one (as the other was just witticism from Trey Parker and Matt Stone).
...
Anyways, I hope you're enjoying the debate.
Plus it should be clear which side you’re taking.
I'm getting tired, but got most of a vote prepped... I am of course curious if Wyited can take back the initiative in the final round.
Ones rights end where they interfere with another, simple but solid opening.
"my argument is, they get what they deserve."
*facepalm*
---
Pew research, great source; 7 point lead from it... Quite significant, but sure, maybe not overwhelming as stated.
The NPR one was less effective. It begs the question of if it's the same on the other side, which would just cancel out the impacts.
Pathos appeal of think of the children is a bad one when I see it, but most voters will be moved.
Wyited wants to ban midgets, he talks for roughly an hour about just that... Thankfully it was a very short hour at like four minutes, and most of it was disguised talking about the topic.
---
Con pushes back on the Pew research, with astutely valid points (I'm a data scientist, so the actual numbers have shined through this whole time).
The women voting for Biden bit is another case of taking things a bit too far (granted, one should during a debate). It's another data point to build a picture; but it of course does not override all others. And yes, indeed the cause could be misunderstood. And yup, Pew is a better source, even if not the only.
Regarding our earlier conversation, this vote falls less into the problem areas of voting based on outside content. It's a conduct only protest vote, not trying to have any impact on the outcome. If reported it'll be deleted, but then you could just make it your own vote with your own description and interpretation of the facts of the debate and revote with that (regardless of it they're similar to another vote; especially on a debate like this there really won't be that much variance).
A vote may reference the existence of other votes, but should never feel that those other votes are the reason for the allotments assigned.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#based-on-outside-content
This should intuitively be true due to fairness. Each debater should be finding just the other debater; if someone else makes a great point against either, it's firmly outside the field of battle, so it may be noted, but should not shift any weighing.
The points are random in my mind for lack of analysis (which I'm sure were in the other vote).
FYI,
Your vote falls short of the standards. Primarily for being a piggy-backed vote, but also for such issues as seemingly random point assignments. Were the debate ongoing, the vote would be removed.
Deleted by user request:
Americandebater24
07.07.2024 08:12AM
Reason:
Pro presented tangible written arguments that were coherent and traceable. Although videos may not be against the rules officially, they lack reliability for judging a debate or presenting a case. Indeed, they might be deemed plagiarism as Con is relying on others' arguments instead of formulating their own. Ultimately, videos might serve as sources, but they do not constitute arguments in themselves. Consequently, I award all votes to Pro, including for legibility, since Con contributed minimally to the debate.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: TheUnderdog // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded:
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
In essence, this vote was just too vague... This can be avoided in future by just commenting on the core contention (and the main counterpoint or the lack thereof), listing a single source you found important (if voting sources), saying what conduct violation distracted you (if voting conduct)... You need not write a thesis, but some minimal level of detail is required to verify knowledge of what you're grading.
Arguments must always be reviewed even if left a tie (in which case less detail is required, but some reason for said tie based on the debate content must still be comprehensible within the vote).
Arguments go to the side that, within the context of the debate rounds, successfully affirms (vote pro) or negates (vote con) the resolution. Ties are possible, particularly with pre-agreed competing claims, but in most cases failing to affirm the resolution means pro loses by default.
Weighing entails analyzing the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments and their impacts against another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.
Sources are optional and if awarded require a strong quality lead. Sources go to the side that better supported their case with relevant outside evidence and/or analysis thereof. If both sides have done their research due diligence, these points are usually tied.
A side with unreliable sources may be penalized, but the voter must specify why the sources were unreliable enough to diminish their own case (such as if the other side called attention to the flaws, thereby engaging with sources in a more effective manner with impacts to arguments; thereby flipping the source and harming the opposing argument).
**************************************************
TheUnderdog
07.06.2024 09:38PM
Con's argument: "NPV lets you win with 6% of the popular vote if there are enough candidates whereas electoral college requires a majority."
If there are 30 candidates running for POTUS, then the electoral college won't cause the winner of a state to have a majority vote.
Con just didn't really present well either. It sounds like a filibuster.
The supreme court which he appointed half of declared assassinating your political rivals is A-OKAY!
I advise playing a game of mafia
Definitions would be useful on this one.
Currently someone could easy argue for an afterlife of feeding worms.
You both forfeited. Would you like this debate deleted?
I was trying to remember the name for this. Thank you!
Devotees certainly behave as if it were one!
That comment about Nintendo... I'd like to think I've evolved past that type of humor, but it still tickles my funny bone.
Good luck on your future debates.
I of course advise accepting that premises are usually flawed, and testing your skill by arguing them anyways.
My argument is almost ready. Next time I have time to add another paragraph or two and proof read everything I’ll post it.
Better that than being turned into turducken people!
https://youtu.be/MQMBZzjCxTM?si=kYy7HyxsPdy75qUa
I just noticed that there's a long argument window, so my busy schedule would probably allow it... So it's tempting
And yes, I know I'm trying to be done with debating, but abortion debates call to me... I don't even take them that seriously, in the last one I used Xenomorphs as a (weak and just there for the lols) argument for forced abortions.
-> when I insist I have a right to free speech Constitutionally
Does that apply to writing and other forms of expression as well? Or literal just to what our forefathers wrote, the spoken word? Also do any instances of 'man' and such refer to woman equally?
Also please add your definition of constitutional right into the description.
You may also want to add a few details of the types of abortion you are applying this to. Human (obviously), before the end of the third trimester, but second trimester forward or conception forward or what? And are you wishing your ban to allow exceptions for instances of rape, health issues (hopefully at least ectopic pregnancies), or anything else?
What is your definition for constitutional right?
Only if you forget about the 13th and 14th amendments... Probably some others as well.
You should specify a bit more. Is it all recommended vaccines, just certain ones, etc.?
If the debate goes anywhere, nitpicking that is bound to be the destination.
Since it’s a full forfeiture anyways, sure thing.
If this is still unvoted in a few days, please remind me and I’ll vote.
Technically aren’t all words that at some point in their past?
https://youtu.be/EF98G8lWZeA?si=tZf8GpUcY9QUh7sC
Brandolini's law
Thanks for the vote.
Fun bit of trivia, Alien 3 was actually Alien 2.
The studio began pre-production on Alien 2, then James Cameron became a big deal. Anything with his name on it that they could find got the green light (some were never finished, like 1994's Spider-Man... Actually, apparently that one was not finished because his name was on it, and that got the rights to the character disputed). It turned out he had written a spec script for Aliens, so Alien 2 was canceled in favor of it.
When the time came to make a sequel to Aliens, there were any number of fantastic scripts out there (William Gibson's being my favorite). But the studio realized they could save a tiny bit of money by using a script they had already purchased... Thus Alien 2 was retrofitted into Alien 3, with all changes from Aliens having to be done away with in the first minute or two of the movie.
The shittiness of what the studio did was so bad that Michael Biehn (Hicks) successfully sued to keep his likeness out of the finished product. That Hicks survived is largely considered canon, and he was nearly in Alien 5 by Neill Blomkamp; but Ridley Scott shat his pants and gave the studio Alien Covenant in exchange for them not making Alien 5.
They are. That's actually why I looked at this debate, due to said reports. However, we don't get a notification or anything, so there's some time variance on when we'll see it.
#Respek!
https://youtu.be/iBKk1McBLxM?si=VZwgJ7RfGbCSiALk
FYI, counter votes are considered vote bombs. It’s not particularly problematic on a “debate” like this, but for future debates please just report the offending vote (and if tight on time, tag the moderators in the comment section).
Thanks for voting,
May you never be forced to carry a Xenomorph to term!
Right now someone could defeat you by showing some political motivation.
Add the qualifier “primarily” into the resolution, and you should get the debate you want. The other side won’t win by merely showing prosecutors voted democrat, but you won’t win by showing something equally minor. It still favors you, but there’s work to be put in.
Certainly at fault, but he will take no responsibility 🤣
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkGK7bitav0
It was good facing you, and I hope you see more of your debates in future. If you'd ever like assistance with the setup for a debate, please don't hesitate to ask.
Have you seen The Good Place? The Trolly Problem episode ends with the perfect rebuttal on this topic. When a doctor is faced with being forced to murder one person to harvest organs for five (five who he ran over with the trolly earlier in the episode), he puts his foot down and refused no matter the consequences for him. As a doctor he took the Hippocratic Oath, and killing the one would be a harm even if it resulted in the net benefit of more people living.
That and morals are easy when there's no dilemma, if we back down from them every time sticking to them is the harder path, it proves the weakness of our convictions. While maybe efforts should be taken to force a doctor under rare circumstances, the doctor should not give in if being forced.
I've been a long supporter of more optional categories.
I’d say it depends on the level of responsibility, and if minimal due diligence applies.
I take no offense at that. My debating skills are good, but far from great.
Someone like RationalMadman who loses quite a bit, has slowly but steadily grown to become better than me.
IMO, I'd be in the lower range of A tier, so like an A-. Not even an A+, and certainly not S tier.
Wholly agreed.
There are tactical advantages to it, but for growing in skill being at a disadvantage is better.
On the other hand, instigating a debate without any easily exploitable loopholes is a lot of work. Then there’s no assurance anyone accepts the challenge.
> Airborne combat medics are movable between locations.
Only with great effort, but add the weight of an extra couple degrees (with frames we’re talking about as much as two pounds!) and I’m not sure it’d be possible without assistance of a crane.
Plus, as a lawyer I know pointed out, if someone adds value to a business, they are a fixture of that business and aren’t allowed to ever quit; and the 13th amendment doesn’t apply because the involuntary servitude is being forced…
(I didn’t say it’s a lawyer I respect; rather he’s one I’m going to crush)