Total votes: 1,434
Sad to see a good debater drop out completely, but full forfiture.
Looks like a concession to me.
Chaotic falafel.
Good fight, but ultimately a concession.
Forfeiture.
A good start, but ultimately a full forfeiture.
Concession.
See comments:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1821/comment_links/27801
Gist:
This debate is essentially about if fallacies are fallacious when made by groups you like
A good start in R1, but ultimately a full forfeiture.
This subject is simply a false dichotomy, but to vote I must still evaluate it...
Pro had the BoP, but he seemed to merely try to defend against con, which can at best bring this to a tie. As the person making the claim against the status quo, he needs to do just that: make a claim.
In refutations pro denies that incest leads to children, but the sources con already brought into the debate pre-refute this. Further con's sources prove harm to future generations. Pro could not find similar harm from gay people adopting children.
Hate to say BoP, but this is a doozy of a claim. A key thing here is pro makes claims about what Obama said, when in fact Obama was quoting someone else, and when not intentionally taken out of context it meant the exact opposite of what pro claimed it meant. ... Plus the mere mention of Obama, raises the required BoP higher, as some explanation for why they anti-blacks would nominate a black man for the presidency needs to be explained.
While con does point out semantic options, he does not rely on them, choosing to instead focus on relevancy issues in the modern day (as opposed to if the debate were about if the Democratic Party were founded as an anti-black party).
Finally pro chose to drop all refutations for two rounds, making his defeat assured.
Concession.
I personally prefer shorter debates on every level. Maybe it should be lowered. However, this debate does not point to that conclusion...
1. Pro first claims that 30k is in violation of some rules.. but these are not rules here, so I am confused as to the relevance. Comparatively, con does a good job appealing to the need to innovate.
2. Pro did better by arguing it as unnecessary wasteful, and used con's R2 to support this (I dislike that he previously demanded to see such a long argument, but that's pretty minor). On this con did well in catching pro calling for some of the cross-examination in comments, and then pro stabbing himself in the foot while trying to be concise changing the meaning of statements. ... On this one, I do side with pro, as I massively prefer conciseness.
3. Con offers that it's a choice, which is not forced on any instigator via not being the default. This is a slam dunk for con. Pro's speed limit metaphor failed to refute this, and he dropped it anyway once con flipped it to favor safe driving at speeds up to the limit even if a driver wishes to not drive at the limit.
Concession.
Had it been otherwise, I likely would have refrained from voting due to bias stemming from issues with what I perceived as Bluesteel intentionally abusing their position.
I would be interested to see this debate with RoyLatham as one of the subjects.
Forfeiture.
Forfiture.
Forfeiture, with the pre-agreement that such would count as a concession.
I agree with pro there is enough time for research, and that con did not challenge that... The thing is, Con has a duty to attempt to disprove (or cast strong doubt upon) the resolution, be that by providing direct evidence against it, or refuting all the evidence provided by pro. Con used the tactic of direct evidence, without refuting every statement. That there is a cost to implement, suggests it's a zero sum gain from the effort it would take to automate.
I do however like the suggested benefits were people to take part, but con successfully K'd this with the lack of demand regardless of hypothetical benefits were people to operate outside their comfort zone more often.
Conduct for forfeiture.
Time travel debates would be better served by stipulating which theory of time travel is under discussion. Of course for such hypotheticals as this, the multiverse need not be proven any more than time travel itself. Further if con must prove that it would be outright good instead of merely not awful, such needs to be pre-agreed. As things stand, con very much went for mitigation, which allowed him to attain his lesser BoP.
Pro offered some concerns, which were valid (I would have liked a little evidence to support the evil countries one; even a clip of when it happened on South Park). However, they were not assured to be the case, and the counter case showed that sought benefits are not undermined by them (nor are they undermined by the majority of the theories, save for the /it already happened anyway/ one).
The death penalty issue con raised was of a particularly good note. That greed might dominate it, does not dismiss the benefit in even a few less innocent people being behind bars (even if it would only be the very rich who could somehow use this to clear their names).
I further find some of the paradoxes to defeat the built in assumption of the debate that time travel is possible.
Anyway, an enjoyable read, which I would have liked to see go on longer. If doing a rematch, I really do suggest picking which theory of time travel ahead of time.
This is not a debate merely on being influential, but outright created. Which even taken the least literally possible, is still a high burden
Pro dropped way too much. For starters the very definition of Western Civilization which was needed as the foundation for this debate, but the only one offered directly contradicts the resolution in light of the counter point "An act cannot create its own precedent," which indeed seemed to be ignored throughout the debate.
I do respect pro not wanting to engage in scope creep, but this isn't a matter of scope creep, this is establishing the scope to begin with.
For next time, I suggest having definitions and such in the description to be pre-agreed, and limiting to a single aspect (as pro had to drop two thirds of his contentions by the end, the rationality and technology). I was not even left with a sense of the humanity angle coming from the bible instead of from Greece (that the Torah contained some of the concepts was a nice if insufficient defense).
Credit to con for keeping his R2 and R3 case concise enough that this is an easy vote.
So this is pretty much of BoP issue debate. Pro had the burden to prove the current state of things should not be allowed to continue. He proved that the problem happens, but not the significance of it and not that it absolutely must change in light of market pressures and the risk of trying to force it to change. The proposed solution could be turned into a fine debate (could even be a battle of each side offering a potential solution), but on this one it's a bad case of scope creep.
This debate also had some educational value, informing people of how a voted tie can affect ratings (I think I only found out about this like a week ago? Not sure how I feel about any tie affecting rating).
Sources:
Questioning who spoke within sources does not work so well when the links were there to see exactly who said what.
Sounds like a very good game. However, con was able to look at different metrics to compare it to other games, and they each won. I did not get a feeling of the comparative metrics placing it on balance at the top, merely it holds up being very good.
One key moment was pro countering con's rating of another game by pointing out the low number of reviews, to which con was able to point out the ratings for pro's option used even less.
When using the term "ever made" it does very much invite comparisons to games which inspired it, which can be defended by showing other games it in turn inspired, but I did not notice this happening.
On the metric of story I would say Fallen London sounds better, but too many out metrics such as legacy, ratings, player-base, overwhelm this.
Concession.
Concession, but one full of baseless insults.
In gist: ELO is a flawed system, which gives us a decent comparative estimate. As a surveying technique, it seems to do its job, ranking people more likely to win higher and vice versa. So flawed, a better system could be made, but adequate.
Operationalism is a word I haven't heard in too long. And very hard to say "qualitative and not quantitative" when numbers are applied making it a quantitative measurement even if a flawed one (if curious I can expand this in the comments). The comparison to win ratios did well in defending ELO.
"I would prefer having an AI telling me who won and who lost based on textual evidence." Damn, that brings me back memories of old arguments. My mind automatically goes to how that could be gamed more easily (plus I generally advice against mentioning spam island... in this case I'm genuinely curious, but without a source showing the system they claim to have, it doesn't carry the day as it may have been intended to).
"If Elo has no correlation with skill," I disliked this line a lot, as that exact correlation had already been shown.
Sources lean toward pro, but as exemplified with the gamerification article, con was able to leverage pro's own sources against him to keep this within the tied range.
Full forfeiture for the majority of points... That said, the case con offered of not being a good debater (and by merit of missing the debate, K'd the notion of being a debater at all), was very persuasive against the resolution.
Full forfeiture.
Gist:
I enjoyed the comedy, and in grading by either standard con takes the win.
1. smarter: this is a weird one, as L kind of won in the weighting here, but in a way that was flipped to be detrimental to his case.
A. Taste in women:
Pro asserts that L would like to date Daisy who slaps Peach’s boyfriend Bowser, and that M ditches politicians, angels, and normal girls, for princess Peach who is a bad ruler.
Con immediately points out this debate is supposed to be centered on the heroic plumbers, instead of their girlfriends. Con implicitly questions is worth can be measured by such a standard.
B. Business:
L owns a mansion, whereas M crashes at his girlfriend’s palace. M also treats said palace like a mobile home. M throws expensive parties (pro repeatedly brings this up), and L does not.
Con begins building a case of how sly L is in business… He further questions if L’s money might be dirty, given that he claims to the IRS that he works as a “plumber,” but owns a mansion.
Pro continues to cite L’s massive wealth, which is at this point harmed by him claiming to have it all from being the co-owner of a family plumbing business, which was apparently abandomed way back in “1983.”
2. Personality
Con brings up their mirror universe counterparts, to show that L is at his core a cowardly whiner, and M is brave in any form. L gets a little credit here, as pro previously brought up him risking his own live to save Peach whenever Mario is unavailable. Still, Mario’s consistent honesty and drive to do right by his friends shines.
3. Skill: M, by a slight margin
M is an innovator, who invented the wall jump, which L only copied later rather than figuring out a move of his own. This was to surpass L being naturally born gifted at jumping; which is a clear case of working smarter, making that a harmful phrase for pro to use in his final round as the wall jumps were already in evidence.
Pro defends that L knows how to operate a vacuum cleaner, and calls out M for steroid use.
4. Bravery: M
Basically, an extension of personality, but with Mario the first to be selected for any fight and tackling them head on.
Pro concedes this point, before trying to link it back to the first contention of intelligence.
---
Arguments:
See above review of key points.
The big one is I don’t trust where L’s money comes from. I would have liked the debate to dive into that, rather than just saying he has it so he’s better. As is, that leaves the quality of having it less desirable than M who seems to leech off his girlfriend, but at least we know where it comes from (some challenge could have been offered of harm to the working class, but it was not).
Wow, single round debate, RM offered a low effort win (due to pro being unable to defend any point challenged), but no contest to the presented argument. Con kind of attempted a classic Wylted K of begging for votes, but put zero effort into it.
Basically a concession.
Interpreting the resolution:
I must quote con here, as the resolution implies… “This debate is about Cosmetic Surgeries for enhancing body parts that should be banned. This is not a debate about eugenics or gender selection.”
1. Desperation
People try it themselves, or use unlicensed practitioners, and sometimes die. A risky point was “…cosmetic surgeries should be reserved to the people who actually need it.”
Con counters that making it illegal would not prevent the illegal trade. Implicitly, it would seem to encourage getting desired surgeries done by the wrong people.
Pro argues this is mere speculation without sources, and says that non-cosmetic elective procedures do have changed rates (bit of an apples to oranges example, even while being a powerful pathos appeal).
Con catches that abortion is a different topic, and calls the comparison “preposterous.” And further flips things back by pointing out the demand is unaffected by driving it underground. He flips pro’s own abortion point, to prove that bans do not stop practices, but decrease the safety of regulation.
2. Psychological
Apparently 15% of people seeking cosmetic surgery have body dysmorphic disorder, with half of those gaining no improvement from the surgeries; and pro links that to suicide.
Pro adds on underage patients, and further stresses that 15%.
Con joins this with citing half of the underage surgeries being otoplasty, and ties the teen suicide rate to bullying; and hits home with dental work to improve lives of children.
3. Thought police
Con builds a case around freedom of speech, citing harmless self-expression surgeries such as tattoos and ear piercings. Better yet, the simple act of getting braces.
Pro’s response to this does not actually address it, merely an insistence that the government has the power to do that if it wants.
There is some back and forth for if tattoos and such count as surgery, to which con upholds that they fall under the same umbrella as cosmetic surgeries due to similarity in risks (similarity in intent I take to be a given), and specifically cites medical tattooing.
Pro counters with an appeal to authority of the years of education for the plastic surgeons.
---
Arguments:
See above review of key points.
There was an immediate moving of the goalposts to government control as opposed to banning. He even ends with “and regulating such procedure does not solve the entire problem but it surely takes a step in the positive direction” note the word regulating, which is not what the resolution he selected calls for (the description could have expanded it to that, but it did not).
As is, basic freedoms are a home run, particularly not having to get approval for teeth correction from Big Brother.
That said, I still recognize the quality and effort pro put in. It just drifted a little off topic, making a lot of it half way to a concession for regulation (which already exists in probably every country with one of those medical studies) instead of bans.
Sources:
I was outright confused when pro used the abortion example as counter evidence, as said source he insists con disagreed with was not offered in R1. I do like that pro sources a lot, but there gets to be a point where it feels like source spam, thus losing the desired benefit. Con on the other hand used just a few effective sources, which held things within the middle of effectiveness (had he used none, I would give this to pro). I must also credit pro on criticizing con’s sources, I wish I saw this more often (still, Gish Galloping sources hurt the effectiveness of whichever good ones there were).
Conduct:
Neither side distracted me (pretty much what I look at, if rudeness to each other gets bad enough to pull me out from reading the cases), but con loses this for the missed round.
Hot Dog is not that British nobleman, so not a sandwich... Kidding!
I learned a lot about the history of hot dogs, so for that I am grateful. However this is a definition debate, and it's a lot easier to prove that something falls inside a definition, than it is specifically excluded by it. In practice, a third of people accept that it's a sandwich, even some tax codes ended up considering it that. So con takes the win.
A highlight from con was bringing up Subway. Pro counting with burritos was a wise move, but reviewing the photographic evidence, hot dogs look far more like the sub sandwich than they do the burrito. Of course them not originally being intended as sandwiches is noted, but much like the sub sandwich, things mutate with time and become other forms than they began.
Let's face it, this outcome is a foregone conclusion. Pro offered nothing in R1, and R2 basically that con had not disproven the resolution to which pro had Burden of Proof. The setup implies an argument against the status quo assumption, which was never offered. There was however at least an asserted K relating to the definition of NEED.
Con on the other hand offered four lengthy contentions, plus rebuttals. He shows that we need to so as to surpass limitations, but yes, to reach it we must want it.
Sources basically as extra credit for the educational value con offered pro and the readers, in expanding what different levels would mean, and that we are basically on the scale as suggested by his first source, and the need suggested by his fourth.
Regarding BoP: This is a bit of a weird one, as the debate both stipulates that BoP is on pro, and that con must prove a different doctor to be better. With these contradictions in the setup, I'm going to have to weight this as shared BoP.
I'm glad that I'm not a particular fan of either doctor (as much as I understand why they're each preferred to some people).
Pro offers three solid contentions, which are easy to track. Con abandons these, largely to talk of nostalgia (which to be fair is the main reason anyone currently watches the show). Con also raises the comparative effects, as much as this was not flushed out, and pro countered with mocking a bad example from it.
Acting: Slight edge to pro
I was going to call this tied, as con did a great job showing the great impression left by his doctor, but in looking back at this debate I'm able to quickly find an example of pro's choice as advocated with key episodes (not re-watching episodes, but watching a previews of named episodes). Con's choice going on to play Worzel Gummidge (I looked up some clips, and he was indeed played differently than the Doctor), does showcase that the actor is indeed talented and stayed hard working, but it is of decreased impact to his impact on Doctor Who.
Character: pro
We have a citation for the Doctor questioning himself, his companion, and a Dalek, for the question of if he is a good man. This is compared to the show being more tongue in cheek now, and an assertion that the other doctor was "the most rounded of all the various interpretations." That Capaldi is getting away from the tongue in cheek greatly harmed the impact of con's point there.
Storyline: pro
While pro could have flushed things out more with what lasting impacts came from the cited stories, con offered nothing on this.
Effects: pro
This point was raised by con, but not defended when a key episode from his Doctor was mocked, and craftsmanship of recent Cybermen was praised. That said, I am not assigning any real weight to this, as no one expects the special effects to hold up, and the primary focus of this is the Doctor himself.
Nostalgia: con
This undeniably goes to con. The very fact that he is arguing for such an old incarnation of The Doctor, says so many good things about the longevity of that performance.
Arguments:
There is something undeniably good about the Pertwee Doctor, but based on what was presented the Capaldi Doctor wins by a large margin. Con almost seemed to be arguing just that he preferred the show under Pertwee, but very subjectively. Had the subjectivity been a key focus with examples of how amazing various doctors have been, it might have been a winning one (would be pretty hard to do with that character limit).
I had planned to just cast a tied vote, but reading things deeper than my previous skimming a couple weeks ago, this conclusion seems unavoidable.
Sources:
While these impacted the argument, I don't feel they were integrated enough to earn this point on such a short debate.
S&G:
For pro, I advise being careful what you put inside quotation marks. "substandard effects" is very different from "sub-standard in terms of effects and production." I also do suggest maintaining use of headings even if your opponent does not.
Concession. That said, credit to both sides for presenting some good thoughtful material.
Concession.
Full forfeit. To quote someone: That's poor conduct!
Concession.
To start, I nearly tied arguments. Had I done that, I would give con the conduct point for pro's unsportsmanlike out of context quotation. Con could love the Blue Shell, and in the confines of this debate still advocate against them.
So pro proves there was a reason (to make it less about luck in the early race). Con casts doubt on the soundless of that reason, as it seems to harm certain playstyles and penalize skill in favor of luck. Both seem to agree they've had to engage in powercreep as a result, which con did a very good job using to imply that the continued presence of the Blue Shells is not reasonable.
Of course the definitions should have been in the description or pro's R1, them coming up in con's closing were not ideal. This is most of why I considered tying arguments.
The final decision was made looking at the resolution. The introduction of them seems quite justified, but the current and continued presence seems dubious in light of the arguments presented.
See comments:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1872/comment_links/26982
Full forfeiture.
Interpreting the resolution:
This debate is considering The Chinese Communist Party, and if their response has been satisfactory or acceptable in quality. Going to have to weight this on balance against harms, using normative ethics.
1. ORIGIN OF COVID-19
We all agree it came from there, which does raise the responsibility quotient.
2. MISINFORMATION, LIES, AND CENSORSHIP
This is pro’s best area, using Li Wenliang as evidence. This is part of their response, which merits consideration as to the adequacy of their response. Pro later builds on this by showing an 18-fold increase in infections caused by China’s choices in misinformation over better forms of treating a virus.
3. CORRUPTION IN THE WHO
This one really needed some sources for evidence.
I think con’s sources near the end were to defend on this.
4. FURTHER MISCELLANEOUS POINTS
This seems to be included as food for thought outside the debate, serving educational purposes rather than trying to shift the debate.
5. China has been adequate handing and curing people with the virus
They build hospitals quickly (the video did not load for me, but the description gives assumed content … surprised pro did not challenge the quality of the construction), which is concluded to mean they are curing the virus. Pro challenges this, as whatever cure China has found has not been shared with the rest of the world (he specifically states there is no cure, I am using a touch of hyperbole to help con better his points in future); and further it would have been more satisfactory to stop it at the source when they first identified it.
There is further a graph showing that they say they completely…? Graphs need more info than this, are those numbers new infections, or total currently infected? Sorry to nit-pick, I’m a data scientist. Pro counters this with an article from TIME magazine.
And they are already reopening schools. Seems scary considering problems of second waves, but still an indicator of progress.
Pro offers a key counter to much of this: “We are not arguing if the US did better than China. We are arguing that the Chinese Government's response itself was inadequate.”
6. LOVE
An interesting side note on this debate, but drifting off topic.
---
Arguments: Leaning pro, I do wish I could make it only 2 points instead of 3, as credit to con.
See above review of key points. Their official response to whistle-blowers was wholly unacceptable, which intuitively delayed other countries from taking correct actions. Inside their own borders, properly responding earlier would have saved thousands of lives per day… They could of course have responded better or worse compared to other nations, but the focus is on the Chinese Communist Party’s choices and resulting impacts.
Con, do be careful in use of rhetoric. By all means use it, but when you include good for the world “ready for such an event, for themselves, the nation and the world,” you should probably address the already proven disinformation (Li Wenliang). As is, you’re implying satisfactory to the outside world matters. … Also, be careful when dropping well labeled contention headings; this became the tipping thing to me.
Sources: Tie
This could have been a lot better. I would say that using pictures, they should probably be connected to outside information from their source.
One way I do give pro credit here, was to challenge China's credibility, which shaded the later transcripts in a negative way. Con, I suggest never telling the voters you are going to try to fill up more characters; the very act of that, is about like a speech starting with “I’m going to keep their brief.” To which in the known history of humanity, only one man has ever actually followed through on that (Robert Gates).
Forfeiture.
Forfeiture.
I really dislike pro's R1, and want to basically discount it from the debate; the problem is con choosing to wait an extra round to reply and then missing the next round after, reduced this to effectively a single round debate. The harm done to the debate, is overshadowing the debate itself, so I am just awarding conduct for this disruption (as much as any other choice would be valid).
With the shared BoP, I feel con pulled it more in the direction of intelligence. Not to say it's brilliant, just that outright stupid was not proven, and intelligence was implied.
Arguing not all food stuff should be considered food and some things which are considered food won't keep us alive, misses the core thing that we still need some form of food to be absorbed. Con capitalizes on this easy reminder.
Regarding the Philadelphia Experiment, nothing about a hoax of an invisible ship (that's what I found when skimming the opening of the link) seems to imply food teleportation (also not sure why it would cease to be considered a "nutritious substance," or even that such a method would make it not count as eaten). When con asked for evidence related to the point, none was offered.
For pro's tactic to be valid, a definition of eat would need to be provided. Probably also a clearer statement that things are only food it they are ate by that definition (the current one uses plants absorbing things, suggesting the method of intake is not what defines things are food).
I really worry about con's obsession with pedophilia, as his mind apparently jumps to comparing a weak weak case to "rape 13 year olds."
Pro came around in R2 with a strong argument that resolutions can equally employ negative statements anyway (if those should not be allowed from a con instigator, could be an interesting debate); to which con could come up with no reply.
Anyway with con choosing to drop all arguments after the first round, the outcome is a foregone conclusion.
I wish this was a three round debate.
I agree with pro's definition of should. As much as con's closing gave light to an implied case that pro should have made the resolution about the developmental level of the mind itself as that was really where his case seemed to be.
A couple obvious things which were missing: The snap example from Spider-Man. Emancipation of minors. And the greater problem that would stem from minors freezing themselves to get on social security! ... On a similar note, con did very well in identifying the regulatory testing to drive cars (I just heard that one state is suspending that... WTF is wrong with us?).
In short con showed a lack of benefit to this hypothetical, such as hibernation not wholly stopping development, and a massive cost in the testing. He also of course used legal issues, which was a nice appeal to the status quo, even if of disputable relevance.
S&G:
A single minor mistake will never be enough for this point. As much as I do appreciate the sight of someone else fighting for whatever categories they can get.
Note:
If it were allowed, I would give pro 1 point (credit for effort and entertainment), and con 3 (still the clear victor).