Total votes: 1,434
Pretty clear definitional debate.
Highlight's from pro, are obviously the syllogism:
"P1. If I provide evidence suggesting Trump should be impeached, I win the debate
P2. I’ve done so
P3. I should win the debate."
Going to briefly review pro's case...
He did exactly what con predicted in R1. I don’t see how pro thinks his definition would change anything. Trying to determine the truth, evidence is considered... does he want us to dive down a rabbit hole of bad definitions to think that evidence is not facts onto itself but rather a living room sofa we sit on while considering facts? Anyway, even he agrees the phone call happened, it's been leveraged as evidence in the case; if it's good evidence or not, is irreverent.
Additionally, pro only offered a single round, then forfeited the rest.
Mass forfeiture. Dropped to conduct only by request.
2/3 Forfeiture.
Minimal point allotment out of respect for the comparative quality of R1 (I haven't a clue what pro's belief in ghosts has to do with this debate, but the counter was entertaining).
See comments:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1563/comment_links/23667
Concession.
Pro, you can always recycle your current work into a new debate.
Credit to pro for accepting the debate, but he then could not provide any evidence (even while the description stated he just needed to find a since piece). Con on the other hand explained BoP and such, and pro failed to even try to advance any points.
...
Also pretty sure that doesn't rise to the level of a K. Those have:
Analysis: The main complaint, and Kritik introduction.
Link: What specific element of the opponent’s case it deals with and how.
Implications: The damage done if the K is ignored.
Alternative: What better solution does the K suggest? If none, we should use the status quo.
FF .
FF. .
Gist:
Self-defeating argument, as con pointed out.
1. Sorry for procrastinating
The first bit here was surprisingly good, as information in the source showed some form of Illuminati existed at one time (which con agrees)... The other two paragraphs were meaningless to the resolution. This actually did continue in R2, with pro trying to say con conceded for agreeing they at some point existed, but that doesn’t stand the WTF test as it was already stated to disagree with current existence.
2. Now for the meat and cheese
Aborted babies... Not topical.
3. the word pharmakeai means
No.
4. the word pharmakon means
No.
5. 911
Ok, something which might tie into the resolution. Bush read children’s books, I am left very curious how this connects, but it is at least coherent. Con does well in pointing out that were they to exist and be involved in the reading of children’s books, them not covering up this supposed leak would imply a lack of the implied conspiracy covering it up.
6. Demolay
Something about demons and Walt Disney. Con confesses to being a knight, and explains if the illumine existed they would prevent these hints to their existence (unsure how it’s a hint, but well played).
7. Rothschild
Rich families exist.
8. Symbolism
Satan and Santa, notably not anything about the illuminati.
9. Opening Arguments (from con)
Too many members needed for the conspiracy to be able to be a secret conspiracy, even leveraging that 7 people is too many to keep a secret ala Watergate. They would lack the money to pay all these millions of members. They would have no reason to keep themselves secret. ... and of course pro not being killed for trying to expose them.
---
Arguments:
See above review of key points. I want to say it fell apart in R2, but it already did in R1, merely R2 failed to continue it, and at a certain point when so little even touches the resolution, I am not going to try to connect the random disconnected dots to ill-defined the Gish Gallop. The biggest problem is the more broad and crazy it gets, the less believable it is. It’s more or less not just about the normal hypothetical illuminati, but the particular one with the millions of members and making all medicine poison etc pro is arguing in this debate.
1 removed from being within FF range... It did look like a really well done debate before that, I hope con returns and agrees to a continuation.
FF .
See comments:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1675/comment_links/23392
Gist:
I was left with the impression the USA is overall preferable. While some countries may be a better match for an individual (damn this reminded me of my final debate on DDO: https://www.debate.org/debates/The-Vast-Majority-of-Sociology-is-Useless./1/), weighing gives the USA enough benefit to overcome any shortcomings.
FF.
A variant of this debate which had a contender can be found at: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1675/living-in-the-united-states-is-better-than-the-majority-of-developed-nations
See comments:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1682/comment_links/23328
Gist:
We have one policy from Yang, and a complaint that it by itself would not raise someone over the poverty level so would in no way help; at a casual glance at the evidence, it seems like it would help those people the most (even while it would not raise them out of poverty... poverty isn’t all or nothing). Con should not have allowed this debate to focus so much on Yang, instead of bringing in some of Biden’s proposals (such as what is his plan to alleviate poverty?).
Comparatively, Biden is more politically effective. Very much an Obama vs. McCain moment. Sadly on this, I did not get a feel of any plans from Biden, merely that were he to have any they would be more likely to pass the senate and all that.
First of all, whatever either said elsewhere, is not proof within this debate. Second, there's no need to accuse anyone of living in the matrix.
While I did not find pro's math convincing, it was more than I did not find his math convincing as opposed to finding con's counter case convincing (maybe breaking R1 into multiple paragraphs would have helped; and yes, for confusing stuff like this, it's really best to break the concepts apart).
I will say that infinite 9's to the left of the decimal, probably wouldn't change to infinite 9's followed by a 0 when multiplied within the base-10 system.
I’m having some internet trouble tonight, preventing sources from loading. Thus not only is the source point not in consideration, but I am having to take each of you at your word for content... The clash on this became too much, especially within such a small character limit, so I am unable to make a properly weighted decision.
Below is the start to my analysis. I hope it is able to provide some feedback into the thinking that passes through a voters mind, to then help you do better on future debates.
1. Military
Pro talks about strength, con counters with a normative Kritik (https://tiny.cc/Kritik). Pro mitigates with review of misinterpreted source information... And then no it wasn’t... arg!
2. History
Pro tried to finish his R1 with this, and con leveraged it as bad for the US. Bigger history isn’t always greater history.
3. Econ
Pro’s highlight here ended up being how much better off the poor are. Con tentatively dropped this to try to mitigate within the society point... Pro shows that US citizens have less debt power as a percentage of their earnings.
5. Society
Canadians live longer, and are apparently more happy... Not really concerned with the leadership, as apparently it worked out to get the end metrics we’re looking at. Removing car crashes indeed doesn’t make sense, as something about US society results in more of them.
---
Arguments:
See above review of key points.
Sources:
(see top paragraph)
Conduct:
This would not be enough to tip the point, but pro, I suggest either having less contentions in R1, or a higher character limit. As an example of how to do this, agriculture's benefit is already included under economy, making it a touch of a Gish point.
No no contest was put forward once pro offered his opening.
Pro proved that by every definition it's the social side (ergo, socially constructed), which could have varying roles within different cultures. While con's case that some aspects of identification stem from biology stand, those aspects seem to be referred to as sex, rather than by gender.
Sources were overwhelmingly in favor of pro. A key one being WHO, which confirmed pro's premise, ensuring it was not a mere assertion (technically every source was the same, but this one had the greatest authority to me).
Full Forfeit.
50% forfeit vs. 100% forfeit.
Concession.
Concession, and a nice job from con openly playing devil's advocate.
Forfeiture.
404 error: Vote not found
Kidding... Con dropped out; while he calls it a forfeit, I am going to treat it as a concession.
Forfeiture.
Duel FF. But yeah, pro made an opening case at least.
Forfeiture.
I'm going to count R3 as a concession (otherwise it's lack of relevance to this debate would make it effectively a forfeit, reducing the debate to an FF).
Pro,
Sorry to hear about your car trouble.
Also sometimes on arguments less is more, and sometimes less is not enough. Your smoking is safe point, was a great hook to bait us in, but there was no follow through on it. Other points which are likely only interesting to you, you expanded badly into the realm of Gish Gallops (that 200 types of plants are turned into oil can be stated as such, no one benefits from the list of them).
Con,
Nice explanation on why the fear of changes to oil are unfounded and miscategorized.
Fantastic use of a syllogism!
"P1: Science history ought to be taught in science class
P2: Creationism is part of science history
C1: Therefore, creationism ought to be taught in science class"
But yes, that was the core of pro's case, which con choose to not really challenge. And as per the resolution, it should be taught in science class, not /should be taught as science./ If it should be more fully taught elsewhere, does not actually address its role in science class. Claiming "It doesn't fall under science in any shape or form," does not work when such was pre-refuted with "creationism has played a major role in science history" and the brief history of creation.
Sources:
This debate was pretty sources light, but con accidentally leveraged the weight of one of them (National Center for Science Education) directly against his own counter case by asserting it was wholly wrong, but not in any way justifying that assertion.
Conduct:
Forfeiture.
Still unvoted... Rap battles are not my thing, but casting a tied vote with some feedback:
Pro,
I liked your music video opening and closing to the first round. I'm surprised you did not continue that in the rest.
Con,
Nice use of videos for beats, and the sprinkling of formatting likely helped any fans understand how you wanted those lines to be read.
Forfeiture.
Forfeiture.
Concession.
FF. .
Not the worst start to a K from con (even if the description indicated the subject matter of us, as in humans), but no follow through, instead he dropped out every round after the first (making it an FF).
Concession. And yes, I believe in giving any user a chance, even repeated chances; but were this not a concession, the vote would likely be the same on the grounds that the likely outcome of said user coming here would almost certainly be a negative experience for everyone involved.
If not for the forfeits, I would still vote con.
Pro never made a positive case, and he had took what he likely presumed to be an easy victory case (even insisting con waive the last round so that pro can have the final say... I'd be more supportive of this type of thing). I used the remaining area of discussion to what that some people (even if they shouldn't get their needs met) indeed have a need for the tool the media has propped up as the ideal in mass shootings. The counter that other weapons could have done even more damage, does not refute the evidence of the cases of the AR-15 being how the needs were met.
Pro of course could have argued those killers don't qualify as humans, or a host of other arguments, but he did not. The only case under consideration is the counter case.
Sources go to con for a well researched case. Pro tried to challenge one of the sources, but it fell flat and lacked the follow up. Con's one on the gain of accomplishing your goals was of particular value to his case, proving that well being is improved for those in question. Comparatively, pro had no sources.
Credit to pro for making sense, and not copy/pasting (a rarity for him), however forfeiting 3 out of 5 rounds still left the counter case (weak as it was) unchallenged. So yes, apparently never loving gives all the benefits of trial relationships and none of the drawbacks.
FF .
Interpreting the resolution:
The debate was clarified to be a false dilemma, to which I must grade one side...
1. Safe and Secure
Uniquely generated by the user’s body, but sadly it’s still able to be spoofed (con used the term hackability, but I think that might be the wrong term). Some extra credit goes to con here, for explaining all about the layers of biometrics which prevent the bad movie bypasses such as photos of people; but he still showed why it is not actually as secure as people would like to think, it can instead be bypassed by cleverness...
2. Convenience
Easy access, and unforgettability. ... Con does a good mitigating point that initial convince is not necessarily a good thing, since if ever hacked under bio you can’t do anything about it, but with a traditional password you can.
3. Saves Money
I’m torn on this. Better sourcing would probably have come in handy.
4. Impact
Con conducted a pure refutation. A highlight was a source analysis which concluded that the damage listed was for cybercrimes in general, not specifically password theft.
5. Reversibility
This was the one that made me comfortable giving the debate to con. It was hard hitting in that that we can always reset our passwords, but if a biometric lock is bypassed we have no recourse.
---
Arguments:
See above review of key points. I was left worrying that if a hacker steals whatever password type thing my bio data is stored, I’m screwed... Pro, a lot of what con was doing was debate lingo, don’t worry so much about it, things like him saying neg all the time is not an insult, it’s a reference to types of reasoning used. Also in future please maintain headings across rounds.
Sources:
I have a pet peeve against posting sources in the comments. I am closer to ok with it when they’re still linked in the main body (as seen from pro after R1), but as the saying goes, a source is worth a thousand words. I also hate URL shorteners, as I like seeing at a glance what to expect.
This leans toward con, but I am just not feeling like reviewing the sources right now when already giving him the argument points.
Conduct:
Pro was a complete wise-ass, which tilts conduct away from him, but I did not see him cross the line into vileness which would cause the penalty to hit. Additionally, I appreciate the attempt at sprinkling in humor.
Con dropped pro's whole argument, telling us about how he's on a mission from god [sic]. This is too overwhelming to take the rest seriously. While not an explicit concession, it might as well be.
Plus the whole copy/paste rather than making his own case (plagiarism, that alone would be grounds for this vote).
And finally choosing to forfeit.
Comparatively, pro made a case. Apparently the US Army says the AR-15 is not an assault rifle, and they seem to be a good authority on this topic (not going to pretend I read the whole case when I knew no real challenge would come).
Metric is better in almost every way, but pro included a convenience clause in the description, which was a loophole con was able to exploit. Yes, were the US to switch, everything would be better for them in short order, but right now dealing with them who have not switched, it is easier to handle local matters within the local system.
I did appreciate pro's efforts in trying to reverse the scenarios. They indeed reverse, but in doing so lose the specificity so don't uphold the "every" requirement. Were the resolution not calling for every way, this would have carried the day.
Sources lean con, but I did not find them compelling enough to award the point.
Full forfeiture.
Full forfeiture.
No contest, as pro refused to engage in the debate even when it was pointed out the minimal BoP was on him to make even a single point.
Conduct for forfeitures.
With such a detailed opening round, I hate that it boils down to this, but FF.
Credit to pro for identifying that Iron Man's armor becomes weaker and weaker with each upgrade, such that a steroid junky could damage it with his fists in Civil War (comparatively, the original prototype could walk forward into rains of bullets).
This largely boils down to a BoP failure, and almost no contest. As the instigator, con should be providing enough reason to doubt the validity of the resolution (unless specified otherwise in the description); instead he merely makes two assertions (each literally a single sentence). He also completely dismissed his EoF when making a counter claim.
Pro literally schooled con. He dismantled con's case (at far greater lengths than it existed), he built his own showing the historical connections to pagan cultures (I am somewhat amused that con complained that pro provided a link, rather than trying to refute any aspect of it). And he even walked con through what he would need to do to support his claims and win the debate (but con was uninterested).
Con's assertion "that trinity doctrine is beyond our comprehension" basically amounted to an accidental concession, as he needs to prove something about it, thus comprehend it (not even getting into the problems of that 8th century anti-educational viewpoint).
Sources:
Pro had an overwhelming advantage here from bothering to research their case, and then line up the sources with the arguments via numbering them. The one that takes to cake for me was con's LogicallyFallacious source, which he leveraged against his own final round (/guilt by association is a fallacy!/ ... "Also, I notice you're citing a Jw.org link, which is telling on where you're getting these ideas from").
Conduct:
Con's refusal to engage with the debate was a problematic to say the least; however this is already well punished under other areas, and he did not get nasty. ... This still leans heavily in pro's favor, such that I am on the fence about giving the point or not.
Concession. Plus, blank document (and being outside the argument round anyway).
I honestly prefer pro's offering, but under the definition we have for hardcore pro basically conceded. "An attack on my auditory nerves" that somehow "wasn't even noise" sounds way more extreme (amazingly both soundless and harming the eardrums!); plus it is reviewed as being "a toilet flushing in hell ... a demonic bowel movment."
Conduct for forfeiture.
So pro's case is that con's massive expansion on his case is a strawperson... Right here this highlights the decisive BoP issue (which con raises as a major contention, and pro chooses to drop). How con managed to find eight whole major objections to so very little, is somewhat amazing.
Sources... Pro never met BoP for implying he read what he was posting, whereas con gave a ton of extra insight into the topic via his sources and information pulled from them (such as the list of countries this debate would apply to from Wikipedia).
Concession, and TMI.