Total votes: 1,434
Forfeiture and foregone conclusion.
Pro only showed up for a single round, during which he largely just accused con of using an AI; and within that round he does still challenge points made by con (important in case a voter doesn't just throw out those arguments for the accusation of AI involvement), but the big problem is he never does anything to advance his burden of proof.
Con shows up in two rounds, and makes substantial points, to include an oddly worded callout for pro not tying his argument together.
Side note: I've debated con, and at least back then he was not using AI (or was at least the primary author of his arguments... There was some interesting ideas, which I doubt an AI would be able to generate). And glancing over his case here, I notice formatting errors which an AI is unlikely to make. Not ruling it out, but there's not enough in this debate to cause it to be a decisive factor for me.
Solid opening from pro, attaining basic BoP (as is expected of R1). Con identified misconceptions of basic definitions, which invalidates pro's case. Pro doubles down, calling that identification an implicit concession... Con plays the numbers game, focusing on statistical likelihoods for either mixed group. Pro has the start to a good defense again that, calling out the bandwagon, but rereading his own R1 in which he refines the groups by the beliefs of the members, it falls a little flat. Plus with shared BoP, trying to say the other side has flawed logic, doesn't prove ones one side either.
This is actually really close. I feel that with shared BoP con does a slightly better job pushing for his side of the BoP; which allows him to show that in practice they are not equal distance.
— CON DID NOT FORFEIT! —
See comment section for his arguments…
Just placing this here as an PSA for voters.
I might get around to placing a real vote later, at which point I’ll remove this.
Forfeiture… I guess pro’s passion for this topic failed him.
Con had some weak assertions, but they were topical and challenged the notion of massive sexism against Mary... And of course, pro conceded.
Forfeiture. And yeah, were that just 7 times more, that would not be such a significant figure... 70... That hits hard.
"There's plenty of researh that connects exposure too porn at a young age to depression, anxiety, and low self esteem in teens."
This is a fine example of BoP failure, pro is proposing a change, they name something that would greatly support their stance; but do not bother to actually cite it.
That said, aside from the appeal to authority (it would be a valid one with just a link or two), I do understand their point and frankly agree with it.
"Some people might argue against me saying "restricting access like this goes againt the right to information. While those rights might be important protecting minors are more important."
This was a fine point, which I actually make on gun control.
Con goes right for the jugular... As I've written elsewhere on Proposal Debates...
"A quality opening round must address the Why and How.
* If the Why is missing, they are easily countered by the lack of benefit.
* If the How is missing, they are easily countered with impracticality and limited resources."
That said, similar to my BoP note above, con falls into the same problem: "It increases life expectancy." Plus, there is a gross-out factor which IMO would be best avoided.
Likewise "Anyone who wants to watch it will anyway find way to watch it." mirrors the common gun control debate counter point (which is usually done with mindless parroting missing all nuance, but that's when applied to a different topic).
"How do you define porn?" Con leverages this quite effectively to point out the undefined scope limits.
...
Most of the remaining is largely repeats of the above, reaffirming and all, but not unique. Pro gravely hurt their case by not responding to the scope issue of how to define porn (skip the mindless know it when you see it standard, and just say visual depictions of penetration... Sure this would leave all softcore porn accessible, but is a clear standard which adheres to the 80/20 rule).
"The objective isn't perfect enforcement. The objective is to lessen harm." is a good point which more people ought to be able to understand. I think the car and candy examples were valid, even if getting into hyperbole territory.
Con did very well with a short summary for his final round, which highlights his cases strengths.
...
At the end of the day, the ban is just too poorly defined for serious consideration.
First of all, credit to the mockery of the tardiness. I am very educated, and in business school different cultural senses of time was something actively studied (say you're running a factory in country X, you need not just to know the language, but how they perceive time). So it came across to me as actually clever and topical.
That aside, I believe con's R2 was an effective rebuttal, which kritiked pro's assumptions about what fairness is to flip them around. Pro then engaged in much of what he accused his oppoment of doing (as much as I would not use such crude terms for it), but ignoring those responses; which was a very critical time in which he really needed to address what they said with some degree of substance as he would have no further chances to response.
Pro badly misapplies math in attempting to prove that one but not both are real… and the appeal to authority of the description does him no favors without him first showing a reason why the likelihood of either has gone up; the very attempt to do this affirms con not being off base to challenge that number as it is not fixed…
I’m surprised con did not use the OR from the description, but it’s quite respectable. In addition to the 0% argument, he instead showed likely explanations for both types of magic as non-magical, driving the odds of either downward.
So close, cons AI farms could so easily manipulate the data to claim to have produce more food… but after a very lengthy R2, pro was able to get barely take back the lead…
Kidding. It was a full forfeiture.
Forfeiture
Not much time for analysis...
I think if this debate had shared BoP, I'd be leaving it a tie. As is, pro has the duty to overcome the status quo. He need not address every angle of it, but it's not a strict comparison debate of 2 hours vs. 7 hours (for setup of a topic like this, I'd probably start with a phrasing along the lines of of 4hours or less, vs 6hours or more... much smaller gap to overcome, but also leaves a clear tied range in the middle, and implies some BoP on con).
The decreased bullying if cutting school by one day per week was compelling, but begs the question of why not just cut school by one day per week? Con was able to raise the issue of verbal bullying, which doesn't sound like it would take much time (and not basing my vote on this, but I've seen my nephew get bullied in videogames plenty; and it does get worse when he's on breaks from school).
Con's point about the quality of education carries the day for me. While pro was able to say it would improve the quality of education if teachers had less time per class but then more classes (to avoid disincentivizing them with less pay as con cautioned), but this is getting into an implementation gap, which isn't assured to manifest as such. It's like saying if we just raise taxes, we will at last be able to feed the orphans; but in reality even if money is earmarked for them, it is not assured to go to them.
If schools become worse, then it is worse for students even if it's what they would prefer.
Forfeiture,
Forfeiture
I disagree, but forfeiture.
Forfeiture.
Arguments lead towards con, but not by enough to make me comfortable assigning the point.
Islam could have taken it, but it was kinda just tossed out there as an afterthought. The whole was Jesus Jewish or not point, either side could have taken the debate with a single source (as is, I’m declining your vote my bias).
That read like a concession, with some added commentary.
For what it's worth, yeah, history would be much better if young men were not so gullible... Then again, they're still quite gullible today, just look at election results (clearly the winner really loves them more... 🙄)
This was a hot mess.
Pro forfeited less.
As for arguments, I am leaving them a tie because both tried bastardly tactics. Pro waited until the final round before presenting his case (at which point there could be no defense). And con seemed to want to a free win because superheroes are fictional (it's a bastard kritik against his own resolution).
This is a massive BoP failure.
Con was wise to immediately show the three separate resolutions pro took the duty to prove. I personally am ok with the clarification of husbands or wives (not quite the same as spouse, even while it’s used as such), even while it should have been in the description. Of course pro did excel at showing other activities besides the missionary position married people may engage in without it being a biblical sin.
Alcohol was a pretty massive failing due to over specifying. Even one drink meant it applied to church wine. Also, it’s quite common knowledge that grape juice is a fairly modern invention from the year 1869. To dispute this common knowledge, would need a strong source implying otherwise (there are many sources for mistranslations in the Bible, but to claim Jesus turning water to wine was a mistranslation requires one to be cited).
The whole alcohol is piss she shit point was destined to go nowhere. It makes about as much sense as saying you shouldn’t wash the temple with water, since some of those water molecules at some point passed through a dinosaur thus making water dinosaur pee.
Also it must be said that Jesus was preaching that R.Kelly should embrace cannibalism, since he is after all a gay fish.
This was a very uneven match, with con falling back on a compound error of Ad Hominem attack and No True Scotsman (saying anyone who doesn't love Dragonite must be trolling, since no true fan would say that).
Pro introduced the topic with a pretty simple metric, including two paths con could use to achieve victory. Con didn't really argue against pro's case that Dragonite is pretty good but not great, he just asserted that Dragonite is cool and popular.
I was going to make this a conduct only vote, but with the choice of point system I cannot.
Pro: Gish Golloping to such an extreme and apparently copy/pasting your previous stuff as if its new, will most likely only lead to victory if the other person leaves the site... Which means you get to debate less, so it'll cost you more than you gain. You'll be lucky if a judge skims more than the first five, and the hit to credibility will make one well researched point outweigh it all. This isn't saying you can't Gish Gallop, but I do advise doing it in moderation and conceal it within subpoints (say make three organized arguments, and have ten subpoints each).
The big problem in this debate is that you have the burden of proof, and no judge will read all that to see if you made a single compelling case.
Con: While the setup is forcing me to give you full victory instead of just a conduct victory, you didn't really win. A single well executed point would have carried the day, but in your confusion over handling the Gish Gallop you wanted out of the debate and half assed it. That said, your points were intuitively correct which carries a good amount of weight, but there was something missing... A single statistic would have outdone the whole Gish Gallop, but you kept your case ambiguous. That said, the need for work trucks was effective. Had you cited say a statistic on how many lumberjack companies use helicopters and dedicated light rails instead of trains (it's 0%), you could have carried the day with ease. ... So in gist, to defeat the tactic you went against, commit to a single strong point, give a source or two, and flush out the implications of it.
PS: Not that it came up, but buses are effectively trucks. It seems this debate wanted to be one on private automobile ownership, but in the urge for AI assisted Gish Galloping, didn't quite take form.
Foregone conclusion (this fits the rule to a T.)
Forfeiture and dropout
Concession and forfeiture.
concession
Repugnant , but a full forfeiture.
Christianity < Con's Life. This is quite simply a big general bad doesn't hit as hard as a personal one.
Women > AI Girls. Originality for the win.
Nutrition > Alimony. Alimony feels like an extension of the previous round.
I could go in depth, but I don't want to (this is a comedy debate, much lower BoP on me). Jokes aside, if anyone wants detailed feedback on any point I'll happily provide it.
I made a couple comments previously, which factor into this…
Arguments can be showcased with a single point from pro: “ No, if God says that you should stone gays just ONCE then that means your infallible creator told you to go stone gays. So go be a good Christian and murder people for no good reason.”
The problem for his case is that this feeds into con’s case about the flaw of trying to do the direct inverse. Christians don’t practice murder (in spite of what they are argued to believe), which offends pro… the direct opposite of not murdering people is self evidently bad.
There were other issues such as pro advocating for general atheism and veganism, rather than a direct inverse of Christianity; which is a very weird thing to aim for.
I do think con did well in some points, such as diets, but he selected a very high BoP he could not hold onto when faced with challenges.
Sources are mostly explained in one of my comments. It fell back outside the tired range for pro not defending his sources when he was accused of source spam without reading them (this challenge was well done, quoting said source to show it was unsound).
Conduct to pro for not trying to take advantage of the website error to act like con had forfeited. He had a bad potty mouth, but I believe the integrity outweighs any issues stemming from that.
Forfeiture.
Forfeiture and foregone conclusion.
Pro was able to meet BoP with the AI weapon systems. While hardly a threat today, it creates an instinctive fear that saying they don't exist doesn't dismiss.
Between pointing out the BoP is for sound (a much higher standard than logical validity), and catching that "human rights arent determined by government" con easily took this.
Pro for his part threw some popular phrases and questions against the wall to see what would stick, but as con pointed out, asking some questions does not equal proving soundness.
Concession
Foregone conclusion.
First of all, sources... It's very very difficult to win sources on biblical debates, because I literally wrote into the rules that discussing the topic itself does not equate to winning sources. However, citing the bible is likely to indicate a strong argument... Conversely, , the lack of a biblical foundation may harm arguments for either side.
Conduct: Using the wrong citation could be an innocent mistake, so not automatically deducting for that.
BoP is an interesting matter to consider. Pro must show that the bible supports it, con must prevent that by whatever means. Con tried for an affirmative case that it supports a conflicting idea, but it's a really big book which is open to interpretation, so these are not mutually elusive claims.
Pro is able to give examples of the Holy Spirit being sent as an agent of the other guys, which indeed strongly implies a distinction.
Con argues in a well done example of circular reasoning: "My position doesn't contain the concept or doctrine of a person, persons or personhood or personalities. It's just , Holy Spirit being Father God period." He also argues it doesn't explicitly state that they are not the same person ("We can't find any where in scripture that the Father is one person, Holy Spirit is another.") therefore they must be.
R2:
Pro navigates the realm of these things not being mutually exclusive (which the bible is really big on, they love to have their cake and eat it too... That's why you get things like Jesus is a blood descendant of the king following the male line, but also from a miracle virgin birth).
Con insists they can be viewed as all one person, so therefore must be.
R3:
Pro defends some more gives more examples such as "If the Holy Spirit were just an impersonal force, or the power of God, it would be unable to intercede on our behalf." Which ties back to some of his earlier points about individuality.
To which con's reply (actually pretty good if playing a priest), backfires "You're not to make logical connections which from man, that's how he explains or understands" we're not beholden to pure logic, but that's an implicit admission that the logic all says pro is right; and yes a kritik that we should dismiss it, but I am seeing no compelling reason to support such a dismissal... So this debate hands down goes to pro.
Concession
Forfeiture.
Forfeiture.
First of all, the resolution of can something exist is way too open ended!
https://debate.miraheze.org/wiki/Resolution
"rarely exists" is an immediate accidental concession.
"may have always contained some dormant romantic interest" feels like it is failing the falsifiability standard.
https://debate.miraheze.org/wiki/Falsifiability
Pro basically opening with a definition to make the debate not so open ended, was a wise move.
Pro catching that the resolution calls for existence rather than difficulty of them staying platonic, is one I don't foresee con recovering from. Con does seem to push back catching the word "can" in pro's statements, which without the later everyday examples would be quite problematic.
"A devoted Christianhusband or pastor is more likely to have platonic relations, even intimateones, with the young women of his church compared to an unmarried college fratboy and the girls on" this was well played, showing these things exist on a spectrum or scale. Con's pushback that religious leaders have failed from time to time, would have hit a lot harder had he not just outlined the difference between exceptions and the norm.
At the end it felt like con was trying to move the goalposts with talk about how even if they exist they aren't true scotsmen... When you need to grasp at those straws, it implies a case which has already been lost (or at the very least severe weakness)
...
This pretty solidly goes to pro. I don't like that he tried to lean on any existence, but at the same time he well exceeded the occasional exception con spoke against with examples I've seen very often in my life.
...
McMieky, there's a good chunk of advice above on setups. Your R2 shows a lot of depth, but the setup ruined you. You may wish to draft an outline for R1 before posting future debates, and then modify the resolution to adhere to what your arguments will be.
Redeemed, for some reason the text editor here has problems when copy/pasting from Word. If you copy paste it into something else like Google Docs, then copy/paste again, your text won't have those missing characters.
Pro argues from the very definition, "a mix of liquid and solid ingredients" which applies to both.
He launches a pre-rebuttal to soups must be hot with "Cold soups like gazpacho" exist.
Con offers a counter definition that "Soup, by definition, is a dish that’s cooked,"
He gets into the cultural usage of the two dishes, which is the highlight of his side.
R2 is largely repeats of the above...
This is close, but his descriptions of the preparation process were effective and not undermined if it was carried out elsewhere then canned; compared to cereal which he asserted does not become a fusion of flavors (which pro really should have caught... like cereal milk ice cream is a thing, because of how good that fusion is).
A point con implied in R2 which really could have sealed this debate in R1 (but in R2 I have to give it no eight because it couldn't be addressed), that cereal has to be consumed immediately. This contrasts to soup which isn't good during that immediate phase but needs time and (usually) heat to make it good.
Forfeiture
https://www.debateart.com/debates/5852/comments/62622
Interesting subject matter, to which my knowledge is a little grey.
Forfeiture.
Forfeiture...
And it needs to be be said that this debate stems from a foundational misunderstanding. The conservative vs liberal divide is about speed and change and caution thereof. Thus sayings like a "conservative estimate" being small, and a "liberal estimate" being less small.
The repeated forfeiture at a critical time in the debate, reduces it to a foregone conclusion.