Total votes: 1,434
Pro effectively FFed.
As con catches, pro does not back up the profound claims, even seeming to invite some. This leaves the case a prime example of the Not Even Wrong fallacy, which is worth studying...
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong
Full forfeiture.
Ultimately a concession.
Pro missed the strong merit to his case, that regardless of if it's poor business sense, business owners by default have rights... Of course, by missing this, basic BoP was never met.
The debate wanted to be pound cake, but fell flat like microwave cooked pancakes.
Without a single warrant connected to morality, it falls flat as a serious debate (a forgone conclusion); and without any of the jokes even causing me to snicker it fell flat as a troll debate.
This would have been better as a concession. Pro's case is almost immediately made dependant on his claim that his own sources must be lying, and that a supernatural power stepped in to blind those who disagree with him.
Con runs a discourse kritik, that even were pro correct, it would not be babies but embryos which natural flavoring is made out of. ... Contextually the description made what he was referring to clear, but such flawed language still deserves to be corrected to improve future debates. The related Ad Hominem committed by pro, makes it tempting to just give con victory for this semantic approach and offer no further review (pro was at least able to point to the description for context, so I'll keep going).
Okay, I initially thought other voters may have been over enthusiastic to award conduct, but for his final round pro accuses con of cheating for engaging in the debate; before going into an off topic tangent about medicine in plants... The insults while not getting vile, are just too high a percentage of the arguments.
So there's no case that natural flavorings are made out of babies, merely that some taste receptors in an artificial sweetener might be derived from embryonic tissue (from pro's own source: "is not a naturally derived sweetness enhancer. It appears to be artificially synthesized from chemicals.").
Dual full forfeitures. Not a single topical assertion.
Concession.
Concession.
Full forfeiture.
50% forfeiture....
Full forfeiture...
That said, con had a great opening with the table of contents and all that; if somewhat long winded. The bigger problem here was trying too hard to preempt every argument pro might make, and apparently while doing so going against his pre-stated argument path (misrepresenting him as wanting the WHO definitions, when apparently they had discussed different definitions and the description already clarifies what standard shall be used).
Pro's case is comparatively simple and is never challenged:
"P1: Gender and Sex are two different words that refer to different things
P2: One’s gender is able to not be the same as the sex they are assigned at birth
P3: If P1, P2, then transgenderism
Con: Therefore, transgenderism is true"
Via the pre-agreed definition they are indeed different things. If going against the biological assignment is moral, is at best a side issue from if it is valid. Still, con gets some credit for arguing so well against the inevitable outcome.
Concession.
Pro proposes a solution that if enacted could potentially solve the problems in their current form, and con complains it has not already solved everything... Rinse and repeat.
The problem may stem from them operating under different definitions for key terms, yet as someone fluent in English, I saw nothing wrong with pro's proposal as it relates to the current form of the race issue. While it would not instantly undo the damage, or make a new age of enlightenment with interstellar travel, it would deal with the issue as it stands today. To use an analogy, a doctor solving a gunshot wound does not make it so the wound never occurred, but they prevent it from killing the patent and start them on the path to recover (which they would otherwise just bleed out as things progress naturally when untreated).
I found neither to have a strong case, but with the BoP resting on pro, the key focus on innocents was not enough (as much as I admit it was an effective emotional appeal to be built upon). And I was left wholly agreeing with pro's implied argument that it should not ever be justified. And definitely people not being terrorists would be far superior...
Con's made a simple case that it would be worth it should a terrorist have information to save a great many lives (specifically, 1 terrorist in pain against weighed against 3000 innocents who will outright die if the trolly doesn't change tracks). He heightened this with a review on the lack of physical harm from waterboarding as a method to make the torture less gruesome.
---Advice---
Pro:
No one (save for communists) will argue in favor of random innocent people being tortured by the government for no reason. Showing why even someone we hate should not be tortured, is where you needed to prove the never piece to your BoP. Also as another voter has pointed out, there were good weaknesses in con's sources you should have exploited.
Con:
Hate to say longer, but another angle of attack could have really sealed this. Reminding us the definition of justified also would have been very effective (justified doesn't prove something is best, just that there was good reason). And if ever doing this topic again, a good source you may want to look at: https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/schools/law/lawreviews/journals/bctwj/23_1/05_TXT.htm
Another foregone conclusion...
Pro argues that homosexual bodies do not exist, and con swiftly proves that they do using such sources as the Journal of Psychiatry and Neuroscience. Under pro's assertions combined with con's arguments that humans are social creatures, homosexual bodies existing already takes care of if they accept it.
This is something I call a foregone conclusion debate...
Detailed academic sources, such as immediately proving something wrong with slave ownership with US law due to the constitution (a word pro only used once, vs. twenty-something from con)... The challenge that at one time it was not the law, which is about the weakest Normative Kritik I have ever seen; lacking both implications and alternatives.
Under the BoP of this resolution, for pro to win there need be "absolutely nothing wrong." Therefore, that that one decisive point, further digging would almost certainly be without merit.
Pretty clear case, as they both agree the resolution is correct in the real world. Con attempts to move the goalposts to a hypothetical world, but I saw no reason this should override the actual debate signed up for. Further, pro has shown capitalism to be highly democratic due to daily votes via spending habits, whereas con instead of trying to show socialism as democratic talked about how everyone having the exact same phone would lead to less discrimination (which is drifting off topic).
On a rap battle, missing a round could be compared to dropping the mic and walking away; I don't understand rap battles so I won't weigh in on if it worked, but it is still a missed round.
Concession.
Concession.
Pro let himself get baited into not waiving. While the quotation later I could forgive, both the declaration of victory (a clear assertion instead of waiving) and "Is failing to present an argument same as refusing to present evidence for argument? My refusal here stands, self-evident." are not rounds wholly waived.
FF of course.
Additionally, I checked a couple random sections for plagiarism, such as "Never have we punished people with torture for their crimes, much less for eternal. But it is apparent that God punishes mere inaction. The Bible has stated." and "Throughout the bible, he has indeed saved many people, but he fails to display the same level of mercy in real life events" which brought up no search results.
Heck, plagiarism is so frowned upon I glanced in the comment section as well for any analysis pointing to it, while I see links, I don't know what inside them I'm supposed to look at. There should be something specific that is plagiarized for such a strong alligation.
Con's choice to effectively skip three out of four rounds, distracted from the arguments and effectively rendered the debate a foregone conclusion.
Pro opens with a list... I am not the biggest fan of those, since they tend to look like Gish Gallops. I do like the comedic note of movies having more noise. I also wholly agree with the clothing point.
Whereas con opened with a well constructed formal case.
The festive and the traditions:
Con does well here with Christmas and New Year, then research to back up the massive rate of participation.
Pro counters with the existence of a bunch of summer holidays, but it's kinda thrown out there without trying to show any comparable in scale (con does good looking at the list for bad examples). He does better on saying Christmas is over hyped and pointing out breakups are more likely in winter.
Internet Feedback:
A nice bit of research, a bit too antadotal, but still good to see some work put in.
Pro counters with another browser, and con double checks (FYI, incognito mode isn't as incognito as you would hope...).
This point doesn't really hold up for me anyway as far as impacts go. If the debate went further, I doubt I would keep paying attention to it.
From there the debate continues, but by the end pro is pointing to things he asserted but did not turn into real arguments, and even uses his final round to just say "summer" which is better than forfeiting, but still seemed to be giving up.
Sources:
Con using sources like Pew Research really tipped this by showing very positive information about his Christmas point that he worked into his argument. Comparatively, pro's best source was that there were a bunch of unnamed holidays in summer, to which con did an excellent job cherry picking to demean them.
A true full forfeiture.
A good start, but then forfeiture.
Concession.
Forward:
I tend to defend categorical votes. I don't think I've actually had any debates on it. And right now I am pretty tired of voting in general so should be almost neutral (further this debate isn't a proposal that either sucks or needs to be gotten rid of, so I'm having no emotional response to the subject). I'm also used as evidence in this debate, so I confirmed with both participants before casting a vote.
Gist:
Con won by a decent bit. However, as a recent business graduate, certain language he used was very easy for me to follow in a way that might not be so for someone else.
The pro case could have been greatly improved with more examples of bad votes, consistent formatting between rounds, and chiefly not asking us voters to act like con is arguing for 1000 categories instead of just 4.
R1 pro
Pro opens with an appeal to tradition, followed by pointing out fluff votes which can only happen under categorical. Followed by a Trump analogy focused on one type of polling (this was self sabotaged due to the link provided doing 7 questions, not just one). One of my votes is used as an a strawman example (perhaps I'm brushing past this in an equally strawman fashion, but I'll call it justified to not overly bog down the vote in defense when the point probably isn't even continued). And finally pro states he doesn't understand why give points to sources at all, and declares winner selection to require more thought. ... Key takeaway is pro identifies point justification as arbitrary.
Okay from here there's clear contention headings to follow...
I Rebuttal: So on and so forth
Con seem to object to dangling prepositions.
Pro gives a non-response.
II Rebuttal: Accuracy
Con explains how properly assigned elements raise accuracy.
Pro points back to fluff votes, which may harm the accuracy of the result.
III Rebuttal: Reliability
Con argues categorial votes understand the need for precision in measurements in a scientifically repeatable experimental fashion.
Pro proposes that con should propose a different voting system (which seems to be getting into off topic special pleading...), before making declarations about poor voter satisfaction under that system con has not proposed...
III Rebuttal: Quality of votes
Just going to quote con: "Voters must be delighted by performance in four specific area points: argument, sourcing, spelling & grammar, and conduct. That exemplifies delight. These are the evidence of superior accuracy, reliability, and quality. Winner selection can only offer a non-descript satisfaction by comparison." Followed up by improved learning with greater emphasis on why.
Pro does a defense using the paradox of too many choices, and uses it to conclude exactly one choice is best (as a recent business graduate, I know how twisted this is, and yet if unchallenged it is still a great use of sources).
Con defends with a source analysis to differentiate voters from toilet brush shoppers, and references route cause analysis for the four categories.
IV. Drops
Pro listed items he believes were dropped, and con defends them. A key take away was a reminder of the report function to delete obvious bad votes (con could have strengthened this point greatly with pro's own words about how poorly justified a 7 point vote could be), such as for the S&G vote over 15 vs 12 errors, when the rules specify that's not enough.
Concession.
Con showed white supremacy being connected with white power, therefore something wrong which pro could not or would not defend against.
6 v. 4
“The judge will award "arguments" (3 points) to the participant with the highest points tally at the end of the debate.”
Con wisely pointed out that the presidential powers are already held in balance by congress, which pro could not get past to show benefit to introducing such confusion into our electoral system (nor could he really articulate his proposal satisfactory).
This debate could have benefited from more details in the description.
Bad for Porn Stars:
Pro shows that it harms future job prospects (side note: a girl I knew working at a bikini coffee shop suffered discrimination for her other job... which to me is very ironic).
The lifestyle can be hard and lead to abuse within it, highlighted with a suicide, and moral questions of consent when you need to work to eat (this could however be said of any job).
Pro further highlights how this isn't some underground crime thing, these are licensed businesses.
Bad for Users:
Pro immediately uses how children are exposed to this way too young...
Porn viewing is positively correlated with infidelity with a strong confidence.
Possible harm to the brain from over engaging the pleasure.
Bad for Our Country At Large: (the big one given the resolution)
Divorce, which pro remembers to build up in terms of harm to children, in particular them taking to crime.
It's closely connected to increased domestic abuse in teens.
Child abuse as well (this one was odd: owners of child porn are more likely to abuse children... Both symptoms of being pedos)
Semantics:
Con complains that pro did not get into the different types of porn enough, and does a valid criticism that if porn were more regulated to have only romantic porn then the problem of connected violence would go away.
Con continues to build a case around such a ban would also ban the written word... I do not see in the resolution or description or even in pro's case a qualifier that anything vaguely sexual be banned, which makes this point seem to be without merit. ... On this one pro does a good defense that if someone were to buy it, that harms of too much of a ban were not shown to be greater than the benefit.
When either side has words like this in the conclusion (at least in debates without extreme qualifiers of absolute certainty), it's pretty obvious the other side won "he has not proven with 100% certainty"
Sources: This was a true landslide. Con tried to counter with a study from India, which made no conclusions, but disagreed with a study that seemed to have more information done on the US population (this being a US policy debate, not international). To be fair, pro also used international studies, such as a Swedish one on aggression, which seems more transferable than one simply throwing their hands up and shrugging.
Arguments: Obviously pro took this. He showed many harms that were left unchallenged, and the benefits in place even if buying the slippery slope were clear and not challenged with worse harms of said ban.
Personally, I both agree and disagree with pro. There are likely better ways to regulate it than outright banning it, but the current harms make said ban seem preferable to the status quo.
Con refused to defend his defense of "Mr. Hitler" and pro uses uncontested sources proving why the defense of "Mr. Hitler" goes against common knowledge and morality.
Conduct for forfeiture.
Concession.
With BoP on pro, con's simple case that it is better to not waste wins.
...
Pro opens with the profound claim that vaccines were intentionally designed to cause cancer. ... Also pepsi is apparently made from aborted babies, since human flesh is so addictive.
Con cuts past it with the simple point that pro's case does not address the sole act of the food, and further that there is a net benefit to using the resource.
Pro straw mans con's case with an off topic rape comparison, and offers a delicious idea of spider-nachos!
Holy hell, con actually catches the spider bit and uses a source to show how good they taste!
And pro engages in a strawman gish gallop...
I want to give pro a kudos point for being so entertaining on a topic that is very often dull, but such is not allowed. All I can do is leave conduct tied.
The best pro does in support of the resolution, is an empty assertion without showing it as better: "they should be able to do what they want to beautify the skin, hair or their nails according to religious belief"
Whereas con makes a case for why the KCA is flawed if trying to point to God, and even without that requires expansion beyond the initial syllogism.
Regarding the K: It felt like special pleading, instead of a valid criticism. My rap/rape debate was mentioned (https://www.debate.org/debates/should-abortion-be-illegal-in-The-United-States-of-America/1/), but there con gives a simple defense of context (further supported by the description), and further I see no sign of pro trying to point out the error prior to accepting. As for the Ormagi/Origami issue, the strength of the arguments for one context over another can be varied leading to different results.
Concession.
Pro showed that he had a problem with con’s expectation that pro must have a problem with him, which con refused to challenge.
Pro makes a case that it sucks for white supremacists that white supremacists have stigmatized the name of white supremacy.
Con immediately showed how "white power" is intellectually wrong by comparing it to a similar absurdity of 5'5" power, and further asserts that it further harms efforts for people to work together.
Pro replies with a word salad, not bothering to directly address con's points.
Con extends.
Pro complains that the English language hurts his feelings by giving fixed definitions of words rather than pure babble...
Pro conceded on account of con being "a beast." Nice job!
Concession.
However, at a glance both sides did a nice job supporting their sides to this one.
>=50% forfeiture.
On top of several other points: "pro showed con makes WEAK and MUDDLED INSTIGATIONS, con dropped this and everything else"
Pro further backed this up with an array of sources from con's debate history, whereas con had no sources showing him being better.
Conduct for con refusing to engage with the debate points.
Forfeiture
No contest and foregone conclusion...
Ok, so R1 pro almost immediately concedes "Atheism is a lack of a belief," to which con agrees, so pro disagrees citing (nice improvement by the way) that it's also "synonymous with disbelief" which doesn't actually change the primary definitions or there being multiple types of atheists (gnostic and agnostic as con specifically points out).
Con gets sources for the educational value of trying to teach syllogisms (with a citation, and a full walkthrough of how to apply it). Otherwise there's just dictionary links vs no sources from the other side.
Conduct for forfeiture.