Total votes: 1,434
Full forfeiture.
1. Why Elon Musk?
Con: government > people.
Pro: SpaceX = Good, Nasa will endorse Musk.
Con: mission could fail at expense of crew lives, and it's impossible to feed 5-7 people for 7 months.
2. Elon Musk has the potential to turn corrupt.
Con: wealth = corruption.
Pro: Musk <> bad, and Musk = wealthy.
Con: No government = bad.
3. Why?
Con: P ( fix earth ∩ go to mars ) = 0
Pro: P ( fix earth ∩ go to mars ) <> 0, and space stuff = useful innovation
Con: Building a rocket could cause earth to fail, also Musk would not share innovation, and spies and enemies could infiltrate mission.
Pro: Previous space innovation in place, and...
I think that's enough of the blow by blow.
In gist, con largely did a K to the topic by saying we just shouldn't go to Mars. I did not see much support for the corruption points, and not sure what he was thinking with the random enemies point. I was rather surprised pro did not better leverage the fear that the resources for one rocket would ruin the earth, as us being on the brink would make getting a colony established truly vital.
The success from previous space ventures, giving us some neat technologies, carries the day. While it's not assured Musk would share innovations with earth, someone else having something nice does not harm anyone else. Assuming it's either his offer or the risk of us maybe never going, then let him risk his people and go.
I would have preferred this debate were it focused better. Maybe Musk's mission vs Nasa's, rather than something like maybe Nasa could fund Musk's mission.
And yes, I can personally see all kinds of problems with a private colony. I did not see much articulation for it being bad, just the assumption that it is bad because it's private.
Full forfeiture.
Concession from pro.
And yeah, big difference between consumers as it's generally meant and investors with a controlling interest.
Not to say all points are equal, but most rounds pro came out ahead.
R1: Pro
Con's song honestly triggered a headache. Maybe it's as pro described in the next round, a "lack of exposure" to the medium.
R2: Pro
Something felt generic about pro's song, like I've heard it five times before from other artists; and yet cons song had a shortage of range, and the excessive use of the N word to seem edgy did it no favors.
R3: Pro
I can't guarantee this was intentional, but it was an excellent follow up to con's last song with a similar depression song but done right to a higher caliber.
Eminem is firmly who I would have expected to win. As a commenter on on the provided YouTube Link put it "Young Eminem, is like a fusion between a dictionary and a machine gun." But the quality of the music to back up the lyrics did not carry the day.
R4: Pro
That voice on pro's selection, damn, hard to believe human voices go that deep.
I was excited for the unique intro to con's choice, but the follow up felt uninspired; a rapper singing about murdering police, is like a country singer doing one about his truck running away; in both cases it is just doing what's expected, in a way that if not comedic it should be.
R5: Con
I actually prefer pro's song here (Eminem is one of the few rappers I've bought albums from); yet with him used earlier in this same debate (even with this being a much better song from him), and cons selection showing someone who apparently doesn't breathe, I'll give the point to con.
Full forfeiture. Even were it not, it is evident at a glance that pro offered no defense to rebuttals or challenge to cons case.
Full forfeiture.
Forfeiture.
There's a couple ways the resolution could be interpreted. To me it generally looks like pro is arguing that cats generally present as symptomatic for autism, and this is their normal state (as opposed to humans where it is abnormal).
Pro opens with a case perhaps hindered by generalities. Con opens with calling attention to that, and an attempted K against the idea of comparing cats and people.
Pro gets very deep with sources to support the eye contact parallel. Likewise shows that cats are obsessed with habits.
Con argued because not all cats are identical, but then that humans with autism are not identical either... This isn't a good way to build an argument.
Both agree that quality of parenting leads to differences in how well an autistic person integrates into society, but disagree on if the conclusion of that is that better parenting for the autistic leads to one who is better integrated into society...
Arguments: Pro.
In gist, pro supported connections to multiple symptoms of autism; whereas con dig his feed into the ground and denied if it's valid to do that.
Sources: Tied.
I do find pro's to be better utilized, but con put up a fight with his own sources; leaving this within the tied range.
Conduct: Pro.
Con missed a round, plus behavior in comment section
Concession
Forfeiture.
Forfeiture.
Full forfeiture, and a very fun (and due to trying to get pro to correct the mistake via the comment section) above the board piece of semantics.
Forfeit…..
Concession and some great analysis.
Concession. Very cool topic.
Forfeiture.
Forfeiture.
Forfeiture.
A slight case v. no case
Due to this debate clearly having been being intended for a different contender, I am leaving conduct tied in spite of the forfeiture.
Pro failed to make a case that he's "a popular, successful, but highly independent and self-reliant man"
Plus forfeitures, and con's BoP argument that pro had not made a positive case.
Concession.
Concession.
Forfeited .
So much win, so much wow!
Forfiture.
Forfeiture.
Okay looking at the description, it gets very preachy before coming to the point: "this debate challenge assumes as valid that the biblical Jesus existed and is prophesied to return to Earth" plus definitions.
I seriously suggest being concise when trying to explain BoP; it should be a sentence largely restating the resolution.
tiny.cc/DebateArt
Pro goes about building a logic chain, one which I admit I had some trouble following... Basically Matthew spells out Jesus will establish the Kingdom at later generation in a time of sorrows, and further that the Kingdom will need administrators who have repented.
Some logic is applied, using historical generalizations, to conclude that Jesus will need administrators instead of doing everything himself; since no man can do everything himself.
Con calls the bible false. This is an expected kritik, but a risky one as the topic scope is on the biblical rather than historical Jesus.
Con goes into a dialog kritik that any "will" statement needs to be proven absolutely positively 100%! Which is very effective when people add absolute qualifiers to a resolution, but is just cheap without being clever when they have not.
"Pro's argument is just a huge fallacy of appealing to authority." Seriously? This debate is set within the religion category, and has multiple clarifying intent statements about this being a biblical debate.
Pro catches con having assumed quotations; and pretty much calls con out for having not read his case to properly refute it.
Pro twists con's own discourage kritik against him, as one of his own definitions for prophecy align with the nuance of pro's case.
Pro defends the existence of the historical Jesus, which is a nice touch, but unnecessary given the setup.
Con falls back on "Pro has yet to prove that the Bible is truthful, or that it is a reliable source." In R1 he literally quoted the description clarifying that this debate treats it as such. This is just too cheap of a tactic. The topic is about the biblical Jesus with the assumption that the biblical Jesus existed and all that. Trying to get pro to prove the build in stated assumption, misses the point that this debate inherently takes that for granted to not put us through a year of bible study before getting to the intended point of discussion within said religion...
Pro cautions con to stay on point... Before following con down the rabbit hole.
Con goes into his final round with "If Pro has failed to prove in any way that the Bible is a reliable source" which again, con was not forced to accept a biblical debate with its definitions and other clarifications, but he did.
Arguments: pro
If the above was tl;dr... Pro made a case for his biblical interpretation. Some topical case is better than no topical case. Pro wins by default.
Sources: pro
I literally put into the voting rules restrictions against adding points merely for preferring ones analysis of the bible over another. This is an exceptional circumstance where con wandered so far outside the scope of the debate, that didn't engage within the topic, thereby leaving pro's numerous references and and related biblical interpretations effectively unchallenged.
Con had one decent source on failed biblical prophecies, but he relied on people liking it, rather than showing the content to be true (sure you say the bible is wrong, but show said contradiction within the bible rather than just declaring someone else did the research).
Conduct: tie.
While I strongly dislike con's tactics, this is both already addressed within the argument points, and con did keep it clean (with the exception of the comment section, but I don't believe he's yet crossed the line into a point deduction for that).
At a glance, pro's own case does seem to be counter to itself. But as the previous voter pointed out, con failed to leverage that within the allotted time.
Note: Piggy back votes are not normally allowed. This being a full forfeiture, with the vote ultimately still being in favor of the non-absentee, makes it non-moderated.
Forfeiture.
Likely intended to be a debate on the Mandela effect, but pro's case never got off the ground.
No arguments from either side, but at least pro showed up.
Greater forfeiture.
Forfeitures.
Con never attempted to present a case.
Pro focuses on the realm of politics, in which fptp can be detrimental to their actual will akin to a game of prisoner's dilemma, and proposes the solution of ranked voting.
Con does not challenge that ranked voting is better, but points out that it does not make sense in all cases, such as this debate to which structurally there is no third party possible.
Given that the resolution does not contain any absolute modifiers (to require alternatives in all cases), at the end of R1 pro has a massive lead.
Con does a little better later, but his core complaint becomes that a different outcome could be reached via ranked voting, which to me is actually in favor of said system; since if there was no possibility for it to change the outcome, it would be wholly pointless to do.
He also has the complaint of complexity, which I had no difficulty understanding how to implement such systems.
In the end con falls back on declaring that if there is ever a case where fptp is preferable, then the resolution fails. However, the resolution does not declare that it must always be so; if an implied majority of cases would benefit (or important ones like politics with weight to them), then the resolution passes.
Pro's case was eerily similar to the evidence of Jesus' statements against homosexuals...
By missing the last three rounds, pro dropped all points offering no defense of has case after initial criticisms.
Full forfeiture.
Due to con missing 3 out of four rounds, their case does not merit consideration.
This is close, and really could have used a third round.
Solid opening from pro. There's a lot to be said in favor of his relativistic motion argument, which essentially boils down to from the fixed perspective of the monkey the man has not walked around it (he in fact seems to be the whole world to said monkey).
Con makes a case that the physical location and therefore the physical object at it has indeed been encircled, and works out the details at length with grid examples.
Both outlooks appear valid and perhaps sound even within the scope of their perspectives.
Ultimately in considering the limited view of the monkey, or the much larger view of the world around it, the world around it is many magnitudes greater. The man knows he has walked around the monkey, even if the monkey continually faces him to deny it.
The moon was a bit of an apples to oranges comparison which I liked initially but it then seemed to get over used.
Conduct:
I was not overly distracted from the debate by rhetoric hyperbole (as much as were I favoring pro on arguments, I would probably mitigate that with conduct). I do suggest avoiding saying people conceded things unless pointing to a specific phrase they used which would imply such. Also it is much better to not accuse someone of not knowing physics, just because they have a different perspective (I'm sure I've been guilty of this type of thing plenty in debates).
Intergenerational poverty was a silver bullet to the knee.
That text symbol bunny logo for the win!
Pro build an argument from tautology (true because of how it's defined), and con agreed with said definitions but tried a kritik that humans are incapable of applying values to non-humans.
Within the definitions under considering, autonomous vehicles by driving themselves as pro has described are clearly "conforming to accepted standards of conduct." Their programed obligation does not succeed in negating that they preform said duty. If con had brought up any source showing malfunctions, this would another matter.
Pro's sources on AI's proved they are indeed making decisions, decisions we can judge. He was further able to call back to previous sources between rounds. Con conversely had zero citations.
Pro missed 3 out of 4 rounds.
Forfeiture
Not the best start with wasting effort criticizing a statement from the comments... Pro recovers and very effectively shows misapplication of psychology, and contrasts it against hard sciences.
Con attempts a silver bullet solution to the debate, by common definitions. He trails off into some pseudoscience of near death experiences (yes, it was to support a point about the mind, not just spiritualism). And then hits a home run with comparing flawed results/applications to Newton misjudging details about gravity, even while still advancing science. The real silver bullet he pulls is in talking of depression, and showing how studies of it employ the scientific method.
Pro opens R2 with insults, points out that definitions can be flawed (agreed... also wondering if I debated pro on if something is a science or not), and proclaims that psychology lacks the ability to test anything so cannot employ the scientific method. He then goes into line by line replies (I strongly dislike those, when the ideas can be easily clustered by heading). He ends by accusing con of having brain damage...
Lets see, con defends that disorders are real even if common among teenaged boys. He wastes some time on the near death experience thing (it could be a debate in itself, in this one it's kind of distracting). And he doubles down on psychology frequently employing the scientific method to include making theories (the sources last round to a scientific journal pretty well carry this).
Had the resolution been more balanced (such as calling it closer to a pseudoscience than a hard science), this debate would merit greater consideration. As is, con effectively showed that it does (even if not every practitioner) employ the scientific method, making it in general a science.
This gets off to a bad start, with pro listing several news outlets which all prove to actually be the same disinformation site. Then he gets into a few others, one of them "http://www.fpp.co.uk/" claims to be ABCnews.com,
The central claim seems to be that some guys took pictures posing after an event, therefore they knew the event would happen. Which is a straight forward Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
He does move on to a weird text message (this time with ok sourcing), threatening a couple people on the other side of the planet with a vague terrorist attack.
And finally that Israeli intelligence generally tried to track down terrorists, and shared their information...
Con defends by criticizing the websites. Compares pro's loose use of definitions to claiming the US had fore knowledge due to the very sight of planes during the attack. And finally that since Israel was sharing their information on terrorist movements, it suggests had they had direct clear knowledge of the plans, they would have likewise shared it (intuitively, since 9/11 still happened, they did not).
After pro forfeits, con adds an extra layer to his case regarding pro's BoP failure, as nothing about strange behavior from isolated Israeli's implies greater Israel Israel knowing.
I'd give con sources had he introduced any (such as one showing the regular cooperation in sharing knowledge between the two nations).
And of course the legibility outside the garbage sources was fine all around.