Total votes: 1,434
Dual FF...
Pro in their usual trollish way, never attempts to meet minimal BoP. The outcome was a foregone conclusion once "China" was mentioned, and can be summarized with a single statement from pro: "the world numbers of deaths recorded due to Covid-19 as of the above date, there have been 1.59 deaths per million among nations of predominately European descent, whereas, nations of predominately Asian descent have counted 3.75 deaths per million through the same date."
And yes, once you have God reaching his noodly appendage down to smite the non-whites to somehow punish the whites (for being so sympathetic?), it's nearly impossible to come back and prove that whites the only group not passed over by this virus.
Sources:
Statistics don't lie. Claiming the total number afterwards will be more dead whites, still doesn't exclude the non-whites God is apparently punishing by accident while drunk or whatever. Extra credit for using the Bible in this biblical debate (that should be a given from both sides, but somehow it wasn't on this one).
S&G:
ALL BOLD HURTS LEGIBILITY.
Comparatively, con was clear and even used headings.
Concession.
I will however note that pro's case was centered on the impracticality, rather than the actual impossibility. Reminiscent of prohibition or abortion, things can be banned, and people still do them.
"I concede this debate out of not wanting the stress and unhealthy conflict that arises when thinking your religion needs to thwart all others,"
Forfeiture!
Forfeiture.
Strong opening from pro, but ultimately a forfeiture with every rebuttal dropped.
And yes, I am assuming the argument was not plagiarized (amazed to see anything still posted on that corpse of a site).
Concession.
Forfeiture. I do note however what a good job con did of showcasing the likely tactics of Robert E. Lee. 😁
Forfeiture.
BoP is on pro, and he never tries to support the resolution. A little use of the no true Scotsman fallacy, but ultimately a concession that women also experience poverty (even if unable to fail in the same way as men, as pro asserted). Con on the other hand uses statistics to show that women make up over half living below the poverty line.
Conduct for concession. Exceptional positive conduct is also noted for accepting this impossible challenge, in addition to complimenting con with his final word on the debate "feminist."
Before starting, I should specify that I find definitional debates to be among the most easy to grade as the standards are so clear.
Pro argues that if apparently only acknowledges untruth, which is almost immediately self-contradicted with measurable truth being hard to discuss without if. This hints at the implied difficulty of pro’s BoP, given that we vote in terms of if (pro wins if he proves his case, and con wins if he prevents that).
Con attacks this premise, showing cases where if is only referencing truth.
Con wisely brings in examples of words that have clearly lower utility, antidisestablishmentarian, and floccinaucinihilipilification. Pro asks for better examples, but in doing so demonstrates the value of if (“One might wonder, then, if a better example might be offered?”).
Con also brings in how varied a word if is, which pro does a good job defending that they mostly did not change the gist of the word and further risks excess ambiguity. This defense however failed to show it being more useful than long sole use words.
Pro attempts to move the goalposts, that the description did not specify “the most useless word” but merely a most useless word.
I should mention that the frequency of use argument implied utility, but is a bit of a bandwagon appeal. Linked to words without any demonstrated utility (as it was done), it was a useful supporting argument to make.
The any language argument I want to dismiss for excessive nitpicking, except the resolution outright specifies that it is only true if if is the most useless in any language. Which makes me surprised I did not see mention of zero utility words from dead languages.
SOURCES:
Con made far better use of evidence in his case. We basically have the existence of surrealist art, vs a dozen or so links tied directly to the debate. The word frequency one was very useful in directly discussing if, and the ones for those weird words was vital in proving those were real words and not just gibberish.
CONDUCT:
Con trying to argue after the debate in the comment section is a noted penalty, but not a significant enough one for me to sway the point. Something to learn from and avoid repeating.
S&G:
Thanks guys, I learned a lot from all the discussion of language structure.
Basically a BoP failure. The big issue is pro disputing that a soul can be quantified (or was he claiming that each member of different religions have a wholly different type of soul?). Con on the other hand refuted that the evidence offered (someone lifts something heavy, and cats) is evidence for some unknown soul by explaining it in terms other than a soul; which left the evidence equally us having a soul to be as valid as claiming our souls are our skeletons.
Pro could have won a debate about love being fundamental in humans.
Conduct for forfeiture.
Sources tied due to them not advancing the case.
1. Health
Pro uses sources to prove a clear harm for almost no gain (prevented abortions).
Con uses YouTube videos in an attempt to get voters to ignore the offered evidence. He does also throw numbers around, but I’ll trust in professional analysis from Guttmacher or other sources above his interpretation. Pro of course defends using expert contextual analysis.
2. Human Rights
Pro uses comparative rights to men to show further harm to women, with the slavery analogy.
With his second and sixth contentions, con revisits this to say that the unborn are the real slaves.
Pro defends that rights should not be stripped away from people. And further that sex is not always consensual, thus there’s cases that side step pro’s entire argument.
Pro further uses the people seeds and violinist analogies (on the Violinist one in particular, con claims pro was refuted on it, without bothering to refute it; or better yet show why an audience member would be obligated to be enslaved as a life support system for someone else...).
This area could be well summarized ith “there is no right to use the body of another without consent.” Given that con dropped things like consent and rape until the final round after pro could no longer respond, and then barely touched them, he doesn’t have a case in favor of human rights.
3. SLED
Pro preemptively argues that no one has the right to forcibly take resources from another, even if that is the only means for them to survive.
With his first contention, Con revisits this to try to make some point out of already conceded material.
4. Personhood
Con asserts (and then later under another slightly different name) that the unborn should have full personhood from the moment of conception.
Con further turns this into a Gish Gallop by repeating it under multiple slightly different named contention headings.
Pro used nih.gov to refute pro’s claims about scientific concensious on when personhood begins. He further uses “human cancer” to show that if con’s argument holds, all cancer treatment in humans must be ceased as human cancer would be a person.
Pro further uses human STDs being treatable to bolster this point.
5. Nazis
Con lengthy declares that pro is a nazi.
Pro points out the obvious fallacious, and hilariously shows that Nazis were also against abortions.
With con continuing this in R2, it’s very hard to take his case seriously.
---
Arguments:
See above review of key points. Somewhat of a messy debate, but the outcome doesn’t seem to favor con in any area, and to vote him would call for likewise voting against cancer and STD treatments.
Forfeiture.
0 Problems with the topic itself
Con does the logical thing in pointing out extra layers of the resolution, namely that for pro to win he must prove that non-religions are actually a singular religion.
I’ll fully forgive pro the plurality error.
The defense that all those groups are religions, remains dubious. Con repeats his bit here that they fail to have dogma to justify and reinforce their crimes; rather they must look outside themselves such as to “societal and economic issues.”
1. Rebuttal
Con immediately catches that pro’s claims outright refuse to draw a connection in support of the resolution (even under pro’s understanding), claiming sin did it, instead of priests of atheism or whatever.
Massive credit to con for translating different claims into testable syllogisms. One highlight which stands out under this is “68% of women who engage in abortion are religious.”
2. Christianity
Con shows a causal link between the deaths and a religion. That he accurately predicts the defense (‘Religious wars started by "Christians" are not consistent with Christianity.’ AKA they weren’t True Scotsmen!), and pre-refutes it with both logical support of the connection, and the fairness angle (pro wants a double standard).
---
Arguments:
See above review of key points. A lot of points spiraled out of control, leaving key needed replies absent or even single line in a much later round. This is why Gish Gallops are best avoided.
It needs to be said that pro returning in R4 did not offer any substantive defense of his case, which he had promised two rounds prior.
Sources:
Giving this to con. Mainly I could actually read his sources. Pro’s made his argument feel potentially copy/pasted from somewhere else. On con’s, a key thing became his sources on abortion which pro claims religious people do not get (and oddly counts it among the death toll), in spite of the direct evidence offered. The Guttmacher Institute one gave con a massive lead here, and I found OAH one extremely interesting for teaching me about the former abortion laws with particular note of the Quickening rule.
Conduct:
Each side missed two rounds. This leans slightly in pro’s favor for having waived one of them instead of outright forfeiting.
0. Preamble
A strong opening by pro which poses many interesting questions. Not really something I'll grade, just like later bits of begging the question.
1. Value is Subjective
In short, differing value “regardless of how much labor went into producing it.”
2. Marx Inverted
Pretty good example with Gordon Ramsay, summarized as:
“Capital does not exploit labor as Marx claims in the LToV. Rather, Capital increases the value of labor by facilitating its transformation into products and services that people want and need which then allows for greater remuneration for the laborer.”
3. context of Marx's philosophical idealism
So trying to weight if something is incorrect, with it partly conceded as “irrelevant to human social reality.” This is a pretty big leap of faith, without much analysis, and the social benefit angle re-challenged with C2 above.
Pro wisely challenges this premise with ‘Note, that this debate is filed in the "economics" category and I believe therefore should revolve around economics.’
And further: “my opponent made no attempt to prove that the LToV IS philosophically correct”
Con’s defense boils down to “I would strongly assert that philosophy cannot be anything other than correct.” Which again, doesn’t prove it. It’s basically just a K for ignoring pro’s economics arguments on an economics debate.
Words to pro: There was no need to bring Nazis into this debate. Doubly so when you have the oppression and corruption seen with communism sitting right there so close to Marx.
4. discourages excellence
“LToV creates a negative incentive structure wherein the less competent you are, the more labor you need to expend to produce a product, and the more valuable your labor becomes.”
Con points out he already conceded this area, but doesn’t explain why such a system would be better.
Side note: My mind goes to the Picasso Napkin story as a defense which would explain why under LToV a skilled product actually takes greater total input than a crappy one which inside the given week of production seemed to take more; however I am not noticing this defense (or one like it) raised by con.
5. promotes inefficiency
Quite a solid criticism with: “the less efficient you are, the more labor you need and the more money you earn.”
6. different adjective
Con says it should have been a different word than strictly “incorrect”
This drags into a weird area which denies communism’s connection to Marx... Not anything serious. Saying something is incorrect and untested, ignores the dropped opening arguments which show it was an inferior economic theory.
---
Arguments:
See above review of key points. Pro takes this by a landslide. I still do give credit to pro for coming up with some counter angle; were this debate categorized under Philosophy it would have had significantly more weight.
Sources:
This leans in pro’s favor for offering some, but I don’t feel it’s by enough when I’m already giving him the argument points.
1. Historical and lingering?
Both agree to the general themes, pro disagrees that it remains.
2. Sex Gap (points 2 and 3)
Con proves gap remains (even if better than many other places).
Pro does a rant denying the pay gap exists, then conceding that it exists, then again denying it exists.
Con reiterates that he was using a general gap, but proves that even by the adjusted gender pay gap there remains a disparity.
Pro concedes it exists, insists sexism has nothing to do with it, but fails to demonstrate what this mysterious other cause to be.
From there con has two more rounds and pro forfeits. No point in further review of this point when pro was already losing (not to mention how much he dropped).
3. Representation
Con shows that women are less represented in leadership roles.
Pro counters focusing on the smallest subset of those roles.
Con counters that pro failed to provide his data, and provides some of his own showing a study from Georgetown University which suggests 13% of the population are sexist about that one area.
Pro defends himself on one of the subpoints, leaving this wide area dropped.
---
Arguments:
See above review of key points. The magnitude of victory is just to wide on what’s already shown to merit reviewing the rest. Likely pro manages to show some small area where women have things better than men, which would be fundamentally overshadowed by the number and impact of the other areas already shown. Pro was obviously never trying to live up to his affirmative BoP.
Sources:
Using the arguments as an example: A well sources case, vs some YouTube videos. The Georgetown University one was particularly well executed, as it proved sexism in believes about women being emotionally unfit for politics, and more importantly using pro’s own cited lack of evidence against him.
Conduct:
Forfeiture.
FF.
Forfeiture is not a reason to believe some song that was never named is even good...
1. Made In Their Image
Nothing here to advance to BoP.
2. Giving Life Meaning
Largely unsure what pro is trying to say with their breeding program proposal. However, “Life is meaningless, it doesn’t matter what I do” pretty much sums up the obvious question and answers in a way opposed to their own resolution.
Con largely leverages this accidental concession into an easy victory.
3. Why I am a Bitch
Made it half a line into this before skipping for being blatantly off topic.
4. Non-Kritik Angle #1:
Con asserts that we should aim to be morally good, without any real justification.
5. Non-Kritik Angle #2:
Con leverages our own fiction against the resolution, via how the writers rig things against bad people and in favor of good (a couple examples could have strengthened this, but it intuitively makes sense).
Pro does a decent job defending his case using examples from fiction, such as if we’re in a Batman simulation it would be better to be a villain than to be a victim.
Con defends that Batman is better than the Joker, who gets mercilessly beaten by a rich boy countless times (sounds like hell). Plus other examples the bad people die early while the good have a chance at thriving happily.
6. Kritik-Angle #1
Better to be sane and live it.
Pro defends against some of the language used in this part, stuff I already dismissed anyway; they leave the core question of better to be sane within a simulation untouched.
7. Kritik-Angle #2
All meaningless, a good twist on pro’s own concession.
8. Kritik-Angle #3
Turtles all the way down.
9. Kritik-Angle #4
Good is easier than mass murder.
---
Arguments:
See above the start to a review of key points. Pro intentionally left their case too disorganized to easily follow, and then dropped every counter point in the final round out of laziness. This is barely a contest.
Full Forfeiture. Granted, that was a sweet bit of mafia narration.
1. selling labor
A decent opening with the idea of someone selling their nearly worthless labor at $3/hour for the company to gain $5/hour in productivity. This of course cross applies to other potential minimum wage levels above that $5 which the company would only break even.
Con counters that too few people are such poor producers for this to be a necessary change.
Pro defends that people fresh out of high school are not worth paying any minimum amount.
Con counters that they have x years training, and indeed get hired (a source for this would have been useful ... the end source showing how low the unemployment rate is, did hold solidify this).
2. Harms of no minimum wage
Con points out the danger that various people would be taken advantage of and paid less than they’re worth.
Pro counters that them being under paid wouldn’t hurt them because they would still be employed…
Con clarifies the point by comparing it to slave labor, which gets across the point he already clearly made.
Pro also says it further harms job growth for skilled laborers.
This is dropped by con.
3. India
Con brings up a very close to pro’s goal minimum wage in India ($0.28), and asserts that activists want it raised.
Pro calls them ignorant to want it raised.
Con defends with a history lesson, and compares the outcome to pro’s proposal as clearly the people are dissatisfied without a minimum wage.
4. Unemployment rate to 0%
Pro adds in his final round that he previously (he did not) said his plan would eliminate unemployment. This really could have used some support (plus “literally” being in the previous round like he claimed).
Con rudely calls everyone unemployed drug addicts. However, his use of pro’s own source was very effective; showing how incredibly low the unemployment rate is according to pro’s own source effectively defanged the argument.
---
Arguments:
See above review of key points.
So decent harms shown, lack of benefit. The benefit be to make us more like India than even India is… I’m not buying it.
Sources:
These lean a bit in con’s favor (due to flipping a source), but not by quite enough to claim the point.
I'm accepting con's phrasing of the BoP to mean the plants cure things. Outright cure rather than merely coincidentally treat, bridges the gap to God.
I do not expect all diseases and all plants to be listed. If say mint leaf cured HIV and the common cold, that would be sufficient to show them curing several things (in that case, just a couple important things). Con played a little game with trying to expand the number of things each would need to cure, this seems bastardly at first but the resolution calls for the absolute of "every single disease that exist" making it a valid criticism. With this in place, and no plant shown to cure several diseases (I believe 8 was the threshold), this has to go to con.
Pro's lost a lot with the Gish Gallops, and worse the bolding of gish gallops. Bold text should be headings or quotes, to guide the audience to important areas of contention.
Massive BoP failure.
Conduct for forfeiture (con missed two at the end, pro missed in in the middle).
A couple of the arguments caught my attention:
Silver
Pro claims God made silver to be good for us, con shows that it is not exclusivity true, so pro claims silver is the enemy and broken (therefore not from God?).
Knowledge
Pro's case calls for the only source of knowledge of what is good for us being from God, but con counters that we design medicine now through complex research rather than waiting for God to do it; which either makes those doctors God, or invalidates the core premise pro's whole case is built around.
50% forfeiture.
Hopefully they'll do a rematch to finish it.
Simply put, "repeatedly asserting that life was coloured by God is neither a rational nor sufficient to meet his burden."
Conduct for forfeiture. Admittedly very confused by pro's outburst "Are children who clean chimney black children"?
On arguments, con was able to effectively counter the painter comparison made by con. Were con to show God coloring anything, he would likely win, but us having seen the painter and not seen God, leaves us with no reason to suppose God was involved. Repeating a million times that God did it, is not evidence that God in fact did anything.
A highlight of the debate was con explaining the generational decay on hypothetical self-replicating paintings, which might slowly adapt to their environment in response to various pressures. He opened up a potential concession had pro been able to explain how to identify which were colored by God and which were from random chance; to which pro refused to show the difference. Tying to pro's own arguments he later tried to reject, made this particularly effective.
Sources which showed how animals (such as dogs) change color across generations without God (not to mention that sad one about white furred animals dying out), tipped the debate such that the burden of showing God's recoloring became necessary for pro to be taken seriously; but he stuck to assertions rather than giving evidence. Pro in quoting some of these references without responding to them, only enhanced this impact. In contrast (this is where pro really lost it), pro used a source to show that moths have not changed but merely look different due to exposure to smoke... Said source actually insists it's a genetic thing, so even pro's own evidence is against him.
In pro's first round, he directly references the "the law of non contradiction," and insists the god with a capital G is the necessary cause; and pretty much immediately raises a problem of "The universe does not have to exist the way it does," and never really connects God in there other than some slight of hand with the didit fallacy.
Con counters with the the fallacy of Composition, which pro defends by saying his argument isn't based on causality (the whole God is the necessary first cause thing he argued... very weird). Con also counters with an infinite regression loop, which pro fails to defend, merely proclaims any random thing can be the first cause without explanation for why that would be necessary; which leaves the question of why would it be God just hanging.
I will say that pro did a decide job with con's own arguments on the subject...
I should first say that pro's insistence "it is not in the scope of this debate to discuss Biblical doctrine" is false. When you argue something based on biblical doctrine instead of just /the universe had some cause/ you can't then throw it out when it's no longer convenient. That runs dangerously close to moving the goalposts.
On rocks, pro successfully defended. God can theoretically do anything otherwise impossible with all matter in the universe, and it would be a logical contradiction to then change the rules against itself to not. ... Not grading based on this, but a glaring weakness con could have exploited was that the spontaneous creation of matter is impossible, so God existing and creating things would be a violation of the limits pro has stated.
On omnibenevolence, pro begs the question of what if an omnibenevolent being isn't really omnibenevolent. This challenges if the creator is really the capital G God or not, so greatly harms pro's case.
On omniscience, pro does manage to defend by throwing out free will. Con likely would have extended it with further explanation for why, but this was not done. Of course, this likely would have done even greater harm to the omnibenevolent point as evil people have no power to not choose otherwise.
Con was the only one to use sources, but with so few, I do not feel they had enough impact on the debate. I am however learned on these theologies, so the sources offered no surprises for me.
Conduct for forfeiture.
In the end, this debate doesn't lean much in con's favor, but pro was the one with the primary BoP.
1. Opening
Pro basically says that to not agree to some degree of obligation to help others in need of help, is to rooted in not being “an emotionally devoid psychopath, nor a completely self-centred narcissist.”
Some strong pathos appeals, some quite irrational, but extra credit for mentioning that cats need help (a little off topic, since of course we have a moral obligation to cats; but the debate is about people).
Pro seems to base his case on being either right or morality not existing. I’ll pretty much give the debate to him if con relies on morality is a wholesale lie (such would be a good debate topic, but it would be quite the bastard move to try in a debate he started....). Conversely, con gains significant ground if he shows morality existing but the resolution to be false for valid reasons.
Con wisely counters using pro’s own words, and points out: “outside of the [pathos] appeal there's zero warrant as to why individuals have moral obligations to help others.”
2. Ontology (the nature of being)
This is such a weird one, as con is the instigator, but he’s pulling what very closely resembles a Kritik. Glancing at the comment section, I do see that he gave double warning this was a philosophy debate (the other obvious option would be a politics debate, to imply something about what some story on the news).
So people might not exist as referenced in the resolution; and if they do, the “contents of their agency is always changing.” And it was formed by other people anyway.
Pro immediately denies this argument exists: “Notice that the entire Round that he was meant to use for opening arguments he uses only for rebuttals?!”
3. Epistemology (the nature of knowledge)
Con goes way deeper than is needed here, basically saying pro’s case is inductive and thus no good. I don’t find this to be strong, or directly connected to the arguments in question for this debate.
Pro immediately denies this argument exists: “Notice that the entire Round that he was meant to use for opening arguments he uses only for rebuttals?!”
4. Metaethics (the nature of ethics)
Con argues that the normative obligation is false because it’s not always true within other cultures (this would have been stronger if directly connected to other cultural groups, such as the millionaires pro mentioned).
Pro immediately denies this argument exists: “Notice that the entire Round that he was meant to use for opening arguments he uses only for rebuttals?!”
5. We don’t exist
Pro makes a case that con made a case that we don’t exist. As a literate person, this is obviously false. Pro even uses his final round to mostly just extend this...
Pro in their usual trollish way, never attempts to meet minimal BoP. Not once source, not one actual person claiming they would flee the draft (or them having actually gone running for the hills as pro claims). Not even any examples of someone calling any football players unpatriotic (one of their key contentions). This leaves the debate outcome a forgone conclusion.
Pro's inability to find any evidence to support their case, is contracted by con's sources, which are headlined by a respectable .edu one explaining what patriotism actually is; which is used in a smart Kritik of the topic.
The title is not the resolution, that is rather taken from context of what this is a follow up to. As pro agrees in R2 "Pro prove that there are 2.73 numbers and that god did it." Without even getting into what's wrong with this (counting integers up to three on keyboard...), I can't find the evidence that this is GOD. Pro even outright chooses to give equal support to Con's counter case of evil machines or wizards, rather than trying to prove God.
This is skimmed heavily, as the previous fifty or whatever they've had, make me look at the headings for what might be new, and when there's not an obvious God connection I treat it as a foregone conclusion.
There's several angles that could have been used to take down pro's case, of which just calling it nonsensical ridiculousness was not one. Con chose to delay connecting his concise case to the issue of soundness (what the debate is about) until after pro could no longer reply, and even then relied of voter knowledge of soundness instead of expanding it into a justified argument.
Pro did an fine job expanding the basic case, to infer why we don't all have the greatest pizza ever in every possible kitchen at all given times (they wouldn't have a soul to understand they are MG, thus would not be MG as they would be greater with a soul). Which is a weakness to the Ontological Argument which still could have been exploited but was not.
The best part of con's case was explaining that world means universe (which everyone probably already knew); even if it got needlessly confusing with talk of simulated realities. The mention of simulations, strengthened the replies using the math to MGB comparison, which con then chose to drop. This lack of motivation for follow through, basically hands the debate to pro by default.
Gist:
Pro chose to insist proof “don't prove anything,” and offer no real challenge to con’s case; do uninspired insults, and then drop out. Comparatively, con offered a case.
1. March for life
This is really just part of the preamble, not debate points in itself. Still of educational value of course.
2. BoP
Given the forfeiture, this alone could carry the debate. Which is ironic, as I also consider it part of the preamble, rather than debate points.
3. Issues ... Structure ... Constructive
Skimming at this point; but all preamble material.
4. Abortion Safety
Okay, into the contentions...
This one starts with a subpoint about prohibition, using that not working to compare to abortion. I suggest such points use an unlined but non-bold heading.
The South African abortion deaths was a good comparative example to bring up, of problems suffered by citizens if abortion were illegal. The follow up of similar studies was also effective.
Con counters that it “are useless as they don't prove anything.” The proof was given, expanded upon, etc. and not countered. Basically, game over for the debate.
5. Fetal Pain
No pain until the “fetus is 23-30 weeks old.” With a very high-quality source backing it up. Thus, until the 23rd week, some harm other than pain should be shown by pro to support his claim. But instead he insists proof “don't prove anything,” effectively dropping this point.
6. Conclusion
An expansion of the neutrality principle used earlier, and the example of scratching an itch also killing technically human cells.
7. Gish Gallop
Con drops pro’s case, and offers a wall of text Gish Gallop; 11 different unsupported assertions. He proceeded to call con stupid for engaging in debates...
There are various ways to handle Gish Gallops, but at the end of the day, I as a voter choose to not reward such obvious BS by giving it the time of day. Try the Chebacco Defense next time, at least it’s entertaining.
---
Arguments:
See above review of key points. Honestly, the Gist section would have been enough for this debate (which is effectively a full forfeit).
Sources:
Pro used a couple, one was pretty decent (but would only apply to late term abortions), and the other was a propaganda piece he used as part of his mind reading demonstration. Con on the other hand researched a case, even citing an academic journal to prove one of his key contentions.
Conduct:
Base insults and forfeiture.
S&G:
Leaving this technically tied, but pro used a damned wall of text without formatting. It honestly looks copy/pasted from somewhere else.
Arguments are little contest. Potential benefits of resource acquisition, vs the threat of global warming out in space... Of course con asserted that the potential resources to be invested in it could otherwise be used for a host of other benefits down here; but without any reason to suspect they might be used for that, this fell flat.
Sources were well used by pro in the second round. It being the final round normally I wouldn't give it, but refuting an argument with a single word and a link deserves extra credit (the link was the universetoday.com one, which showed that we know what asteroids are made of, whereas con insisted we have no idea).
Con's numerous spelling errors, distracted me from the debate. Such as within this segment: "prove Earth is flat and soace is fake to win. Instead, the framework is one of oriorities whwre" or "We jave so many issues to fox"; whereas pro (with the exception of the wrong word in the resolution), was clear.
Conduct for forfeiture. Technically a full forfeit, even while I'm choosing to grade everything.
I can hardly believe I’m doing this, but my computer needs WiFi to sync my writing before I work on that, and nothing else on my phone is holding my interest...
So giving Lunatic a slight lead.
Firstly, two songs in a row by the same band, is probably not the best showcase of your range.
Playing Beat Saber was a fun move by con, which he probably should have continued; this was kinda matched by pro making a video of his singing... The problem here is of course microphone quality, which I wondered about already when that scratchy noise sometimes entered things.
Of course I genuinely think Lunatic was the better performer in this contest.
Either is of course a better singer than I could hope to be.
Forfeiture.
Forfeiture.
Concession.
Forfeiture.
Weird one... Generally the title itself or the description should clarify if the debate is about said aliens don't exist, or if they are morally bad?
NOTE: I have flipped pro and con in this RFD, realizing the needless reversal, I don't feel like editing my RFD to match)
Getting into the debate... Pro, I highly suggest using the formatting suggested here, so that people can easily track when a new contention begins: tiny.cc/DebateArt
Once you've concluded politicians are secretly demons as a fact for your case (without any proof), I want to skim ahead to the next point.
Con, thank you so much for narrowing down what this debate might be about, and for using clear formatting so it could be easily followed (seeing the bold names of things, I can skip each in turn, already knowing basic history and such).
The debate is half way over before a clear position for each is made, and con showed very good conduct by agreeing. So the debate is that Hitler, Kerry, etc., are more likely demons than aliens. Shared BoP.
Oro soundly refutes Crosseds case, even using syllogism to show that earthquakes do not prove anyone is secretly a demon. It seems he did the tactic of outright disproving claims of demons, which leaves the not disproven case of aliens more likely (even if unsupported).
First off, I kinda like this idea of a small proof of concept debate.
The resolution was a bit ambiguous, but con gave a fair interpretation of it to companies owned privately owned or publicly traded. Pro took it to be the private vs. public sector, to which both of con's company types would be in the private sector. No reason con's interpretation should be rejected was given; I can imagine a case for this, but not when going into the final round.
Private companies being able to invest in the long term rather than being held to the whims of the stock market and general public opinion, seems better than publicly traded companies. This effectively went unchallenged. NASA is of course great, but outside the implied scope of the debate, and entered into it too late for that to be defended.
Conduct for forfeiture.
Concession.
Forfeiture.
Honestly the debate did not get deep enough for me to clearly say if there is something wrong or not.
The most standout argument I would say is that pineapple pizzas just go into the garbage. It so wanted to be a great argument, but made no sense. It's about like saying some people prefer steak, so salads should not be an option.
The defense of tomato is an interesting point. I've personally had sliced tomato as a topping many times, but both debaters seemed to believe that tomato only goes on pizza in sauce form... A problem here is that just because it's accepted, would not mean there's nothing wrong with it; especially since con did not make the argument that pineapple is wrong for being a fruit; and it's an apples to oranges comparison anyway.
So the one point of the debate I will say has a clear lead is the sources. Con flipped pro's source to be in his favor. Perhaps were the debate to have gone on another round, pro might have shown that such matters only make pizza more popular as a whole, but as is, pro's own source was used to imply there might be something wrong with pineapple on pizza. Had the debate gone another round and such a point was not raised, I would likely be giving arguments to con (I give less weight to things in the final round after no one can respond).
See comment:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1700/comment_links/23834
Gist:
BoP was on con to prove Donald Trump is racist, which he failed to do in light of pro’s alternative explanations for why any of these things might not be based on belief in orange (or whatever race's) superiority.
See comments:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1509/comment_links/23821
Gist:
In short, pro showed that the young earth model left the flood an impossibility with our anthropological record.
Concession.
FF .
Con joined this debate not intent on engaging in discussion, but rather to act as a type-2 troll, and largely an off topic one at that. "Your Alt-Right way of thinking is downright ridiculous." Served as a fine example of the conduct violations which caused the allotment (not even getting into the ranting and raving about race).
Arguments are no contest (a researched argument vs. deranged assertions). Not being a state continually hurts Puerto Rico, as both sides showed (lack of support following a hurricane,m and the president having no incentive to change this); similarly there is no benefit reaped from this.
Pro well supported their case with evidence. Chiefly they predicted counter cases to invalidate them ahead of time, such as the population being greater than many US states; they did this so well that con did not bother finding even one shred of evidence to make a warranted argument.
When studying the law of non-contradiction, you learn that divine beings cannot lie, they change reality with their every utterance. 2+2=5, Mexico paid for the wall which was definitely built!
The above is a joke related to how certain people have dogmatic faith in politicians. This debate was a concession.