Total votes: 1,282
Con taking the worst possible interpretation of the resolution, missed that clarification in the description.
“remove the Penny from it's currency” doesn’t sound like hunting them all down for destruction
After that, it’s largely an unknown number of people still use it, versus $70M spent on it every year (that’d be 24 years to build one of the wonders of the world, not every two, and even if earmarked there’s no guarantee it’d ultimately end up going to such a project).
Without a weighable benefit to maintaining the status quo, but having a strong weighable cost (plus defense of other countries doing it without problems), pro wins.
And FYI, money costing more to make than its technical value, only matters if it’s circulated less than said value. This has to do with the money multiplier effect.
From the voting policy:
"If you spot some true rubbish that invalidates their argument or the spirit of debate, call it out with a vote against them on conduct (or more as warranted by the comparative arguments) and move on."
Pro wishing con would die and calling him the N-word, is an wholly unacceptable tactic (pro, consider this your written warning). Trying to be so vile that the other side is likely to abandon the debate (or at least the topical arguments therein), while not explicitly spelled out in the voting policy, is still cheating. Worse, we can never know the circumstances of strangers online, and what damages out of the blue statements like that could cause.
Thankfully in this case, con had fortitude and wit.
>> "That is too much cholesterol and furthermore you are fat, ugly and should die."
>"I might be offended if I wasn't convinced you're a bloated diabetic that's chronically constipated and repulsive to look at.
> Furthermore, you should get better taste in food before you actually do end up dying from that garbage."
The second is IMO how to handle such insults inside a debates (note the de-escalation, and pulling things back to the topic). It is also far better criticism of the others diet, so it wins the argument point from me as well.
I found this here debate about farming tools when searching for the word "hoe" at the library a couple towns over.
I cannot help but feel both sides went off topic with their big city slang; but at least they respect their heritage, by using the word Pimpf from the fatherland.
To do the work of a Pimpf may or may not be easy, but the need to trick young ladies into hoeing the farm for you, in it and of itself suggests that work might be hard. Or maybe they're looking for a future wife who knows the meaning of a days labor, since hoeing is much harder for the fairer sex.
On the other hand, the man who called it hard got drafted by Uncle Sam, and Uncle Sam wouldn't do that if the work on his farm was too much for his family...
---
Jokes aside, conduct for forfeiture. Leaving arguments tied due to how unclear it is with the on balance issue but also with career pimps being shown to be unintelligent via their own words, while at the same time they have some natural talent... Some analysis of risk to reward could have tipped this.
My previous vote and addendums may be found in the comment section at and around:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/5318/comments/59620
---
Due to having not covered much of durability, adding that in...
"since he is an Uzumaki and Jinchuriki"
Pretty sure I commended on this already... A statement like this doesn't mean anything to a lay person, and voters are supposed to act like they are lay persons.
I don't much care for ultimate powers (if either loses they have a power which takes over and kills the other). Those things being employed as pro points out (well one sided points out), is a draw at best (and at least for Naruto it might also kill him if he uses it). Was of course wise to point out that Kurama is apparently not mastered until after episode 300; much like how con tried to argue Aang couldn't use fire (avatar state I'm unclear on).
"'burning straight up ignores durability'"
This is a pet peeve of mine, while the words are close, that's not a real direct quote. Misquoting to that degree pulls attention to the actual wrote: "The Avatar also has many non-kinetic ways to end Naruto, like drowning, burning, asphyxiation and immobilization, all of which straight up ignore durability"
Not to mention, trying so hard to dismiss his fire powers, implicitly says Naruto is weak against them. Likewise for trying to shift focus off of those other non-kinetic attacks.
Needles, Kunais, and I don't know what else are able to harm Naruto as normal (Kunai was defended because the guy holding it was exceptional; still, normal iron or whatever it's made of). This really goes back to my expectations that both are physically human except when questionable writing takes over.
Speaking of kunais... Naruto is a ninja, for whom throwing weapons are a key thing... Yet it's pro who lists Naruto's skills there. Those are a ninjas best ways to counter Aang maintaining distance with his wind powers (while such also reduces ranged weapon effectiveness, I'm sure there's plenty of examples of Naruto aiming well during storms). Naruto at some point on the show has super long arms (not certain when he gains that power). Chakra arms are Naruto's one ranged attack, and they aren't defended as being good when lines of reasoning are made to suggest their ineffectiveness.
---
Plus again, it wasn't clear to me what Naturo's powers are within this debate. Something about he collects fox tails, and the fox tails are sometimes toads, and that lets turn himself into any inanimate objects and him make 1000 clones of himself (seriously?)... Need I go on? Whereas Aang can manipulate X, Y, and Z (elements), and those counter G, H, and I from Naruto. During any debate, if the other side does better representing your side, it's going to be an uphill battle.
---
So in conclusion, I'm left with the impression that Naruto doesn't have the winning combination to defeat Aang, especially with the range problem. Whereas Aang stands a decent chance against Naruto, especially with the power supply advantage. This isn't a conclusive Aang will win 10 out of 10 fights; more like two thirds or three fifths of the time when discounting draws (of which there'd be plenty).
Pro treats defeating Russia as the end all, and while this doesn't get challenged, the likelihood of nuclear Armageddon is raised... It is raised by pro of all people... Intuitively, that would be bad for the US.
“ Now, every so predictably, you'll presumably tell us more how you'll rip my anus add some slurs, boo hoo, I'm hurt but you're just proving me truthful, see?”
When debating someone and they write the above, doing exactly that (even with an elephant metaphor) comes across as very limp wristed (with all the talk of jacking him off, pun intended). When someone predicts your tactic, damned well pivot your tactic; to do otherwise might as well be to concede since they’ve pre-refuted it.
Also, rap battles are not supposed to be confessions of affection. I get that it’s more hatred than love, but it is obsessing over a desire to rape and jackoff one side… It literally made me think of the episode of South Park where Cartman drugged Butters, and then took pictures of butters dick in his mouth to prove that Butters is gay.
Whereas the other side did real and personalized analysis, with links! So rather than scratching my head at probably made up BS, One a click I’m able to see WTF is being referenced.
Concession.
Before reading the debate I decided regardless of which argument I prefer, that I’d leave it tied due to potential bias I’ve been accused of by one debater…
The main failing from both sides was relying on the comment section.
Pro: if it doesn’t help your case, bringing in content from the comments is a poor idea. It makes voters look there, instead of strictly at what your opponent presents inside the debate.
Con: your points from the comment section were about the same length as your argument, but IMP flushed out better. Literally just copy pasting them in would have greatly improved your case.
The lack of a definition of evil confused matters. I’m under the impression pain = evil but also whatever a property owner decides is evil = evil. These are overly simplistic competing definitions, with no reason stated why either should be preferable.
Adding to matters, points are argued without warrants, making them weightless assertions.
Concession
Also to be objectively right or wrong, involves application of metrics. If no numbers but just a feeling, then it’s not objective
Took a bit for this debate to build momentum. I could see con laying out some string, a stick, a nice treat, and a box overhead... Somehow I was like 'oh the box must be to provide shade' but in R2 he sprung the trap...
"Women are not privileged by default. That is the very reason why policies were made to help them out. That's why athletics has a lesser league for women in all sports. That's why Chess elo grades have categories for women have lower Elo to earn them, that's why awards ceremonies had to have a 'best woman' and 'best man' category to avoid men slaughtering women."
In one move, con knocked western civilization off the board. There wasn't even a real attempt at recovery after this.
...
Earlier points (from when I was grading this contention by contention).
Dating: pro (for the first point, not the second)
Pro starts strong here by showing that women have an advantage in setting the terms of things. Sadly, left to his own devices pro starts into rants about how rape is the lesser evil compared to not getting any action.
Con concedes the first point in this, and later criticizes the latter for lack of a coherent measurement system.
Wage Gap: con
Pro argues it doesn't exist, because women can whore themselves out to counterbalance it (FYI, if you need to counterbalance against something, that in itself proves it exists).
Con brings the expected point of less promotions for the same work.
Sexual harassment: con
Pro brought this up, and con was quick to point out that sucks for women so more is worse. Con further supported this with a comparison of the rates to which each group files complaints (hell, a couple years ago I was being sexually harassed at work, I didn't realize it and filed a complaint for the threats of violence which stemmed from me refusing to let them touch me).
Height: Con
Muscle Mass: Con
Pregnancy: Pro
Con's point, but it favors pro due to it showing something women are superior at (yes, in hindsight it this fed into denying BoP by showing they are not equal on paper).
Murder: Con
Yup, men really excel at that.
...
Without such a society as laid out in the title existing, pro cannot meet BoP, thus victory defaults to con. In contrast, con offered plenty of evidence to support his tactic as being more than baseless assertions, which pro would do well to learn from. Sources which particularly stood out are hbr.org which showed clear inequity, and ncbi.nlm.nih.gov for a breakdown on muscle differences.
Concession.
Pretty sure I've previously criticized those definitions. Mere consideration is an incredibly low bar. I mean I feed a stray cat, right there it reaches the bar.
Oh hey, pro goes right for the above "if human beings deserve any level of moral consideration from the point of conception, the resolution is affirmed."
Con finds an interesting K: "it seems like you are claiming that only humans deserve moral consideration" which is intuitively a misrepresentation and oversimplification, but as pro will no doubt defend, it falls outside the scope. Still this one is a good appeal to try for, with a focus on sentience which is the greater factor to many people. Yup, pro responds "Moral consideration of nonhumans is simply not the subject of this debate." Which inevitably pre-refutes some of cons better points, such as "baseless religious beliefs and speciesism" which on this broad topic I am drawn toward agreeing, just not when applied to this very narrow scope.
Pro doubles down on the harm principle, and expands his explanations. With a focus on social contract theory, pro shows why humans aught to give greater consideration for humans rather than pigs or various inanimate things.
I enjoyed the discussion of souls, and wish it had continued. While I know pro is incorrect in his claims about gingers being people, which his own sources implicitly supports (Flintstones can be proven to not be people, along with all members of the band Guns & Roses); con fails to catch this, making it yet another wholly dropped point.
Both debaters would benefit from learning the term "amoral."
Ultimately, con dropped way too many points for this to even be a close contest. Pro instantly catching the scope creep further refused his arguments.
...
Sources:
Leaning pro, but with con at least challenging one of them I'll leave this within the tied range (albeit, by a small margin)
A request for destruction, vs a pondering of the problem of evil
Pros is easier to understand, but cons is highly relatable even while the specific target is not understood; and ending with a call to be healed, which feels like what we all truly want deep down.
So yes, cons seems more beneficial
Pro basically hands the win on a silver platter (denying he's gay, a very closeted move), but con rejects it to instead imply that pro is bi instead of gay.
In short: "All of your arguments are unproven assumptions."
Pro builds a case of incel propaganda (at least it wasn't copy/pasted)
IF true,
THEN sources are easy to find.
Sources would have undermined con, making his kritik weightless.
Con on the other hand kritiks it with an alternative sexuality; and rather than pointing out that it's not really hetero, pro asserts that they go for those little boys because they're so Chad. Which con wisely uses to mock that said chads are "short and weak," which pro flounders at, and somehow doubles down on his off topic rape isn't rape claims.
Thankfully the debate ended with what it should have been instead of a debate, a simple request for BK to not participate in debates from the instigator.
Mostly this debate was non sequitur, which is to say the conclusion does not follow.
"Some users put hours of work into their arguments.
Best.Korea usually responds with only a sentence.
This is ridiculous and it needs to stop."
Right here is a good example, since the conclusion of outright banning someone rather than getting them to change, is quite the leap into faith.
Of course BK builds off of his point about "effortless arguing" with a two word reply "I disagree." I don't have to like this to see that it is arguments, and further the argument the instigator requested.
Gish Golloped lists of forum posts, don't highlight problems to me (voters need not open every link, in fact reading into links too much can be problematic).
Of course, yes, BK is pretty vile. It may be useful to compare banning to the death penalty (extreme I know), if someone should be punished as such, it should be about more than just moral outrage that we dislike them. Laws they've broken, harm they inflict, benefit if they were not taking out oxygen, etc.
A surefire path to victory would have been reviewing the rules for banning someone, and finding say three good and recent offenses worthy of a short term ban (the resolution did not specify how long).
Sources:
While a single source is usually insufficient for either side, con was exceptional in converting pro's source over to his side with pro's interpretation being non sequitur to the actual material within it (specifically, that it was selling counseling for abortions, not speaking against their existence).
Arguments:
I hate to say it, since I've called this fluffery before, but see sources.
Pro's whole case was the existence of that source, so in flipping it, con unquestionably firmly takes it.
Forfeiture.
Also worth noting that pro did well with IDF having a habit of being caught lying, which undermines cons best evidence.
Fun topic
If doing this again I suggest the description includes a little about how these things work in real life, and if it’s Mario or yourself using it.
That leaf sounds stupidly overpowered, with great versatility. I’m not sure how a tranq is expected to take it down.
Uppercutting with the propeller, aside from risk of self harm, was leaned on way too heavily when there’s so many creative uses for that thing.
Con called out the very thing I noticed five seconds in, that pro’s argument (in addition to not being his own) is only about some in one subset of non-Christians, not even most within said subset.
Pro uses a Bublé quote about God, which Con calls out for circular reasoning… technically it falls short of even that, as the quote refers to God, not the various books (including actual fan fiction) contained within the Bible.
Fun ethical thought experiment
Ultimately con began to lose ground with me with what he thought was a coup de grâce. That the box could potentially produce something named ‘moral justification,’ doesn’t make Ted morally justified when he risked everything for everyone without any consent other than his own.
A lot of the problem is engaging in semantics, instead of engaging with the thought experiment. While there were examples such as if you’re poor you should risk everything… Pro defended those with the simple fact of Ted knowing of the potential horrible outcomes for everyone. As for there could be a in case that isn’t named, it wasn’t named or even strongly implied to potentially exist.
The bomb analogy almost tipped it. It placed into my mind the hypothetical of a doomsday device which is ticking down; under those circumstances, it’s better to try anything than to do nothing. Leaving it with the low scale, doesn’t show me that the box is justified to use instead of just cutting a random wire on the bomb.
Pros case also could have been better. While I appreciate conciseness, it’s a gamble; even a couple more paragraphs would have clarified and therefore strengthened their case. Pro also should not have brought kindergarten into the debate, even while con embraced the ad hominems and got carried away with them.
Pros case falls back to special pleasing once coma patients feeling pain was brought up.
The source to support it was essential. Challenging it for not having a precise phrase, did not hold water since it had the gist of what con claimed of it.
“Elon Musk is from South Africa and is technically an African American so he likely isn't very smart”
Please never stop. 🤣
Pro: ever let such a garbage definition stand unchallenged. Even just explaining a better interpretation of it would go a long way
Also your case felt like it was asking the other side to make a case for you, rather than providing a few actual examples to cast doubt on the racist narro.
Con: a short reminder about how these systems feed into each other would have been nice. As an example, the justice system by not locking them all up, allows the violent ones to commit violence on their communities. Whereas a randomly selected one (Elon Musk) who spent those key years in drug treatment (basically prison for rich people) has led us into space! Therefore, racism is risking human extinction.
Chess is great and all, but con was able to challenge if it’s even truly a form of intelligence. Pros own arguments help this, since he calls it pattern recognition.
Forfeiture
Forfeited less
Pro offers a simple but logically valid case. Con counters that it’s unsound. And Pro doesn’t really defend….
https://www.debateart.com/debates/5222/comments/58038
Forfeited less
While pro gives a straightforward case that to eat an be applied more easily to either action, con counters by embracing the comed. At first con seemed senseless, but then they whipped out the math. The inputs to that formula were eloquent, and the conclusions derived were superior to my own.
Con shows God as pro infanticide, which intuitively is inconsistent with pro-life values.
Pro argues that the Bible is inconsistent on the matter…
pro-life is firmly anti-abortion, all the time, so this is a no brainer.
Pro was able to support his case with an implicit logically valid syllogism, albeit a boring one which seemed disingenuous in its reliance on semantic truisms.
Con offers a fun counter, but failed to show any likelihood to his ideas which left them grasping at straws.
It’s a BoP issue in which someone else might rule otherwise. However, I view it as the duty of they who present a line of reasoning to support it, rather than to deflect that the other side has not absolutely proven it impossible. This is much like the legal standard of reasonable doubt (not to be confused with some tiny sliver of doubt).
That said, when it came to numbers from sources con excelled at understanding them, and taking pro’s evidence away (not outright flipping them, but still noteworthy)… Said evidence just wasn’t key to the winning arguments. It was however great groundwork for an argument which didn’t quite manifest.
While the assertions were weak, pro's were a little less weak and managed to attempt to be engaging (asking the other side a question, to which there was no reply).
Foregone conclusion due to only one side presenting detailed arguments.
Also this seems intended as largely a discussion, to which the forum might be better suited.
Forfeiture,
Forfeiture,
the majority of Light Yagami's killings in Death Note were unjustified
Fun topic!
Self Defense:
Pro builds an implicant case that IF self defense, THEN justified. Therefore NOT self defense, NOT justified.
Exceptions:
Con argues that things should would intuitively not be justified, are justified by duress.
Moral Duties:
Someone's been watching The Good Place!
I wish this section had gone on longer, possibly with use of the Batman/Joker (Batman using his superpowers to bring The Joker back to life, makes him morally responsible for the likely death toll) and/or Superman/Zod (had Superman let Zod murder the planet, he would be at fault) scenarios.
Net Benefit:
Con argues that since Light does greater good than harm, he is justified.
He does very well in this by arguing both sides, the innocent's Light killed being arguably not, and IF assuming their innocence then it's still justified. The graph was an entertaining piece of evidence, even if a sub-optimal type of graph for this comparison.
Pro counters with a hypocrisy kritik against utilitarianism, and says we should instead use Ethical Egoism. He does not show why Light should refrain from killing people under Moral Egoism, and ironically that was the main fault shown of Light that he subscribed to Moral Egoism.
Con embraces Ethical Egoism, and reminds us that Light wants to kill those people; therefore under pro's own moral system it is automatically justified.
And pro for some reason doubles down on this without first defending why it would favor him...
Real World Impacts:
Pro was clever here, arguing that it's just a show so the deaths don't inherently matter, but since anime violence is the cause of real violence it is automatically unjustified for the writers to portray that... I am praising the attempt take weight away from the fictional lives saved. However, the absence of evidence hurts this (in addition to being counter to the spirit of the debate).
Con counters with Berkeley study which shows the opposite. He additionally counters that were we to dismiss Light as a cartoon character, it would mean all his actions are justified for lack of any net harm; this is why debates such as this should stay to the spirit of debate, rather than desperate tactics to ignore it.
Foregone conclusion and forfeit
Concession
No case from either side until the final round…
Pro calls Israel hypocritical for being Nazi-like, and says they’re actively creating the next generation of enemies (intuitively, genocide would prevent that).
Con replies with grammar-Nazidom, and accuses pro of gosh-galloping leaving him unable to respond to all the arguments.
I feel neither actually touches the precise topic of aid, reducing the debate down to anti-Israel vs pro-Israel.
I am not seeing any Gish gallop, merely a weak assertion which could have been easily challenged in any number of ways.
While con tried the Ted Lasso defense, it failed to actually elevate himself to be equal or better than pro, all he did was show that pro could have done better at insulting con.
As entertaining as pro’s trolling was, he gave no justification for any of his single line ideas. Against a true vacuum they would win but con rose a little above that.
Con argued (well mostly asserted) Israel should be more precise in their attacks, and focus a war on localized propaganda (hearts and minds) to prevent the next generation from continuing this trend of violence.
All that said, pro did make a case that con was cheating to have been offered any advice in the comment section, and as I am specificity named in that I will leave it as a tie. Don’t get me wrong, had con copy pasted or even paraphrased any counter plan from the comments (such as Brother.D’s religious call to bomb them) I would be voting against him, but such was clearly not the case.
I expect con to win this, due to pros answers being so short as to fairly dismiss his case as a foregone conclusion.
…
Fob makes the case that an example of justification is to prevent greater violence (kill a murderer before they can kill you and/or others), but should there be another option than it is not justified.
Pro argues for decreased violence, which con counters that there are unnamed other places kids could be thought to get the same effect; pro is able to flip this with the logic that more decreased violence is better. Without anything to at least imply a better path, I have to give this to pro.
If debating this again I advise focusing a bit on the reliability of most the population being thought subjects at school. Some statistics on low rates of violence against gays in school would be a good counterpoint, and/or references to better uses of their time while at school.
Forfeiture
Conduct for needless insults.
Arguments… I actually really appreciate cons case of cause and effect; but when pro dismisses it as the human mind is the ultimate cause, he does not defend that the human mind is formed based on experience outside our control making it not the cause of itself. Thus with that defense in place, pro is able to hold the initiative.
Got to say that I am really lost as to the bit of pros case about random monoculars actively making any choices, just because we observe them. Choice implies a will, for which pros own arguments call upon a mind as the source. Still, he comes ahead l.
Sources should reply be used when challenging official stuff. Con could have taken the definition battle, had he just said who he was quoting.
Nice R1 from pro but ultimately an FF.
Con wisely calls out the definition for special pleading. Additionally it’s an absurd definition, which reduced self defense and everyone involved in convicting and executing a mass murderer as murderers themselves.
Flipping pros own appeal to authority was well executed (pun intended, murderer!). While I see defenses which could be done on that front, they were not.