Total votes: 1,434
Pro lacks his own case, so plagiarizes. This issue is compounded by him repeatedly being told how to properly present things in a non-plagiarized form. The issue is bad enough that he can't even think of defense when a source is challenged, as con does.
Pro argues his main case by assertion, and pointing to reading we can do elsewhere, rather than just laying out at least a sampling of the evidence. He further lets himself get side tracked into wholly off topic conspiracy theories.
Con side tracks the debate into wholly off topic conspiracy theories (how the logo for any modern company would imply anything related to evolution, I haven't a clue).
I'm left with there being a fossil record that strongly implies evolution, and some of the cases against it being false, but not a real case in favor of it. However, con fails to advance the case against it as a fact. I am left leaving this debate a solid tie.
FF .
Another troll debate from con (were it not, it would be eligible for deletion due to committing libel).
Pro while offering only a weak case, argued a couple angles, with his main bid for victory being showing how a group can clear a former image... "To clear their image, they (and/or their offspring) need only to apologise for acts, prove over time that they're not violent and cruel and then the news cycle will move onto villainising some other group."
To which con complains about instead of offering some counterpoint (and no, claiming pro is one legged does not count).
Forfeiture.
First of all, both sides did really well.
I am not reading all the links but generally trusting peoples word unless there's a dispute. Innovation was a place where pro made the mistake of responding to challenge by repeating his link, without giving any analysis of why MA did more for innovation than the tech and film industries based out of CA. The source point leans toward con due to using con's own evidence to show better roadways (which relate more to the average experience which pro has argued), but I am not clicking through enough of them to consider myself justified were I to award the point.
To me this debate boils down to pro arguing the average experience of people living in a state vs con arguing for maximal contributions of each state. They of course clash, but they never come to any agreement on which standard is better. As a voter, I have to take a side, to which I am going to use an analogy... When Nux trips and Immortan Joe calls him "mediocre," it's not to say he's complete garbage, rather he would expect the average person to trip but Joe demands excellence, and when Nux fails he has to go murder Imperator Furiosa himself.
As can be guessed from my analogy, I am treating "of a more excellent or effective type or quality" to favor the maximal more than the mediocre. California giving so much more to the US economy (even if on average they have a lower disposable income), their tech sector, their national parts (which MA validly chooses not to do, but I consider their presence to imply quality), and more. A couple factors I really don't favor California on are pure size and population (which does affect the electoral votes, which is something I would consider in their favor... About like if we were comparing boxers and one had much longer arms). The racism angle fell flat to me, as a state containing some racist people isn't usually defined by the racism, and we're trying to analyze the comparative greatness; which isn't going to be ruined by a blemish (were one state being lead by the KKK it would be a lot more than a blemish, but Twitter posts which are likely skewed by a few jerks who post a lot, is just not enough).
Concession. Arguing that conceding doesn't mean he lost would be possible, but the concession was pretty explicit, and it does mean he lost. (This isn't a slip-up, this is the whole premise of the debate requires the legal paths already be exhausted to leave an outright violet revolution as the only path)
Con put everything into a weird Kritik about Jesus; maybe it would have gone somewhere had any part of pro's case been tied to religion. Anyway, no contest against pro's case for the absence of evidence means the claims which should be based on evidence are BS. Conduct for the disrespect of not showing evidence of having read pro's case (the religion angle, instead of anything tied to this debate).
Plagiarism (from Wikipedia no less... as if no one would catch that).
Plagiarism/spam.
The line from pro "Much of this money is tied up in diversified wealth funds, which some would object to as not counting as real state ownership." Is visible on a half dozen other websites, and is not attributed to be a quotation, nor is it a line of rhetoric. (this is the first random line I grabbed for a check, I expect the rest to be similar)
100 might be too few, but I like how quick and concise it was...
And yeah, FF.
Plagiarism. And yes, you are supposed to use evidence but to then give your own interpretation; even just paraphrasing it would be preferable.
Were that not enough, the debate turned into con teaching pro how to construct arguments; so literally schooling him.
That said, I'll provide a little more detail in case trying this topic (or a similar one) again... The topic was basically a truism, but to cast a serious vote on it, I would need to treat it as possible for Left Wing Economies to generally fail to work (presumably this debate would only be initiated based on someone saying they outright do not work). Con did a good job Kritiking this, to mean pro needs to show they generally work, not merely by chance they worked in a single location. Pro did fight back a little on this, but included muddying the waters on what makes an economic policy considered left wing (a weak kritik against his own case being able to have meaning); which denies him the ability to reach minimal BoP.
And of course I've given some more feedback in the comment section: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1593/comment_links/22399
Both forfeited every round after the first, but con made a strong counter argument (catching built in contradictions, using historical examples to add even more, etc.) which as the cut-off point for the debate, with plenty of opportunity to be defended against, takes home the argument points.
FF vs nearly a FF... conduct to con.
Concession, as confirmed by con:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1503/comment_links/21745
Plagiarism as identified by con "My opponent's points are entirely copy and pasted texts from other sources, and my opponent does not bother with elaboration nor argumentation" plus forfeitures.
For this resolution, even if we were to take it as true that God exists, no connection to the creation of morality was ever established.
Pro's case is just an elongated goddidit fallacy, without anything to suggest God (instead of say the Devil as con pointed out) actually did it. Pro even speaks of God reaching down from heaven to smite babies as punishment on them for violating his morality (I am unsure how they were supposed to have sinned?). He then explains that morals are things like olive oil and apples... I don't want to try to figure out how that works.
Con makes a concise counter case, explaining what morals are (this seemed to be accepted, and am still at a loss for what use of olive oil has to do with it; but apparently it increases our live by 14 years if we go to the church which does), and that they're ultimately subjective to what we desire (pro even concedes that they are subjective, rather than something objective from a higher power), leading to the ultimate point that pro has not demonstrated God's involvement.
FF.
FF.
FF.
Actually I quite liked it. I thought that some of the metaphysical imagery was really particularly effective. Interesting rhythmic devices too, which seemed to counterpoint the surrealism of the underlying metaphor of the humanity of the poet's compassionate soul, which contrives through the medium of the verse structure to sublimate this, transcend that, and come to terms with the fundamental dichotomies of the other, and one is left with a profound and vivid insight into whatever it was the poem was about!
Concession.
Gist:
It felt like pro (the contender) copy/pasted his case from elsewhere, without proper modification to meet con’s points. This was made very evident when he got caught making points that were pre-refuted without bothering to defend why they would be valid in light of the existing case against them... Needless to say, if an argument is invalid, it cannot be sound.
1. Cosmological Argument
This boiled down to pro asserting something, and con accusing it of being a fallacy of composition, which pro tries to defend with an analogy of if we observe part of something being red we should assume the whole thing is red... Which upholds that the fallacy of composition has been committed, doubling down on it does not change it away from being a fallacy; and thus invalid.
This ends up pointing to contention 2 for proof...
2. KCA
Pro makes this, even when con had pre-refuted it during his opening. He pulls it back to contention 1, when contention 2 was needed to uphold contention 1.
There’s a lot more depth, such as explanations of dark matter, Hilbert’s Hotel and how it does or does not uphold this contention, but pro chooses to drop it all.
3. Uncaused Universe
This section is very lengthy, and mostly dropped even from the start (awhile before the forfeitures)... A highlight from this broad area was pro complaining that he simply did not understand how a causeless universe would not require a cause.
4. Occam’s Razor
This was con hammering away at the four O’s, and ended with con pointing out that pro refused to offer evidence; but instead commits steadfast to special pleading. Given that the resolution is about soundless not just logical validity, pro could have lost the whole case on this.
5. Internal Inconsistencies
Very informative section, which teaches us all about how we misdescribe things by calling them by their secondary instead of primary attributes. Pro fails to understand this section, saying because he says God has secondary properties that those are the primary properties... Con makes short work of this blunder with a car not being defined by being red analogy (tying back to an analogy from pro previously).
---
Arguments: con
See above review of key points. I could list the various times pro treated his case as a truism, but to what point; he needed to uphold that something was a sound theory, but failed to even show that it was valid.
Sources: con
Twenty vs. zero. Pro's attempts at using sources, were badly broken links, which made it feel like he copy/pasted his early arguments from elsewhere, rather than properly responding to cons points.
Con’s explanation of the Hilbert’s Hotel and how it’s not a real paradox but an intuitive trick, was a strong note, as it was highly effective use of sources to outright flip part of pro’s case; which pro then chose to wholly drop.
Conduct: con
Multiple forfeitures.
Very good job from both sides.
Forward:
I’ve tried to avoid this news story (watched one clip from the Daily Show), so the analysis was almost all new to me. I am still quite confused as to what Hunter Biden has to do with Ukraine, or why Trump is calling in favors from foreign nationals (worse, goddamned heads of state) against a private US citizen.
Anyway, too much of this debate is two sides agreeing with each other, so I am going to break things down into the BoP suggested by con, and my key takeaways on that...
1. Trump made an offer
Pro goes to great lengths on this. Con argues that the offer was not explicit enough, and that Zelensky did not know the full terms of what Trump was offering... Still sounds to me like the intent from Trump was to make an offer.
2. This offer was illegal
Got to say it... If I steal something of value (or have someone else do it), but don’t go through with using it, I’ve still placed myself in possession of the illicit goods.
A key part of this area was Trump’s own words acknowledging that he knew he’s supposed to stay out of it. This isn’t Mr. Burns poisoning one of Homer’s doughnuts level guilt, but there’s a strong parallel there.
This area was strengthened by pro’s question of the other related men in the criminal case, which implies that the offer was not purely in pursuit of justice. That we can’t read Trump’s mind to confirm he’s guilty, doesn’t change how suspect his actions are on this matter.
3. This offer was secret
Between Trump choosing to have it classified as a secret, lying about it publicly, and the very need for the existence of the WB, there was not much room for contest on this area. A badly kept secret is still a secret. Claiming you’re just trying to prevent anyone finding out, is by definition trying to keep something a secret.
I believe the remaining content of said server is outside the scope of this debate.
---
Arguments:
See above review of key points. I will add that I see no reason to doubt the transcript which Trump wanted to keep secret; I agSee above review of key points. I will add that I see no reason to doubt the transcript which Trump wanted to keep secret; I agree that there may be missing word here or there, or one word where another should be due to translation errors (more likely from Zelensky, as Trump is an English speaker), but the gist of it can be trusted. On Trump’s literacy (if he knows the meaning of justice), it was very entertaining, but a little off topic (I will say that it’s debate worthy onto itself).
Conduct:
Pro conceded this to con, and con asked to not be awarded it. I am going to side against con on this, his above and beyond level of sportsmanship merits an exception to conduct being a penalty.
FF. Still unfortunate that these could not be deleted when pro was banned.
FF and plagiarism in one debate, pro's got the whole package!
Con, FYI, the opening sentence was stolen too; it was the title of the article from which he stole everything.
Actually I quite liked it. I thought that some of the metaphysical imagery was really particularly effective. Interesting rhythmic devices too, which seemed to counterpoint the surrealism of the underlying metaphor of the humanity of the poet's compassionate soul, which contrives through the medium of the verse structure to sublimate this, transcend that, and come to terms with the fundamental dichotomies of the other, and one is left with a profound and vivid insight into whatever it was the poem was about!
Pro demands that con read his mind to find the self evident things that he refuses to share, in a complete misuse of the turn Burden of Proof...
The whole debate can be best summarized with an entire short round in order...
Con: "Although statistically unlikely, it is possible if your opponents consistently made stronger cases, it would be the logical outcome. Can you name any specific debates in which he voted against you when you feel you should have won?"
Pro: "I am too smart to be treated this way, it is obviously bias"
As can be seen in the example, pro refuses to share any evidence that there is a problem outside his own mind.
See comments:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1388/comment_links/21240
See comments:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1486/comment_links/21212
Gist:
It was a really good discussion more than a debate, but as a debate it was won by con for long term considerations and pollution.
I don’t really trade these as arguments, but...
Conduct for missed round.
I was just told by a voting moderator that voting for pro conceding that money often buys happiness (which con identified multiple times), plus a survey of the main opposing argument that money is all about buying happiness (a short statement which encompasses the heart of his argument lines and sources to support), was not enough. So with the contextual content of the debate insufficient even when longer than one side's arguments, I am going to just take the obvious shortcut on from now on regarding this caliber of debate.
Plagiarism. Pro's third paragraph in R2 onward was stolen material he did not write but claimed to have. Which again, is something con identified as part of his arguments against pro. And no, providing links to where you're stealing from, does not magically add quotation marks or other indicators of giving credit where credit is due, or add analysis to actually make it part of an argument for or against any resolution.
FF
Gist:
Pretty short debate on one half of a historical event. Con stated what would be acceptable evidence, even after pro had already offered some of that, and then tried to convince us it did not happen.
0. Reliability (preamble)
The New Testament has suffered very few changes. This obviously doesn’t prove it true any more than the gods featured in the Illiad.
Con counters with a Political Kritik of Nazi certain ideology having more copies thus being reliable to the same standard.
Pro backs up his first link with another (a much better one IMO), showing that the number of copies indeed helps determine reliability of historical records. Then explains why the Nazi comparison is false.
Con says none of pro’s case meets the criteria from said source, line by line listing them, to include “Does the information go in-line with other reports during that time?” Which having read pro’s case was a resounding yes (the various manuscripts which were then compiled, and the number of witnesses to the single event this debate is supposed to be about).
1. Swoon
A debunking of a what if, via people don’t get hurt that badly and sleep for three days only to develop super strength.
Con counters this doesn’t prove Jesus was first crucified...
2. Hallucination
A debunking of a what if, via 500 eyewitness accounts.
Con counters that maybe those 500 people smoked weed...
Pro explains what he already explained, that identical shared hallucinations don’t happen en mass.
Con says pro hasn’t proven the their word is reliable (which it being spread over all those manuscripts...).
3. Conspiracy
A debunking of a what if, via no record of intentionally falsifying facts.
Con hinted at /the absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence/; and complained that pro was refuting potential lines of cons case rather than outright proving his own (a decent point, even if #2 was definitely favoring the existence of both events).
---
Arguments: pro, but not by a high margin
See above review of key points. I strongly disliked con’s R2 opening trying to specify what type of evidence pro is allowed to use; given that it was copied anyway, why not put it in the description? Worse, it shot his case in the food by saying “basically X person saw Jesus resurrect” as valid evidence, given #2. In fact almost everything circled back to #2.
I hate to ever say a larger character limit would improve things, but this debate can only be judged for the level of depth it reached and had potential to reach within the space allotted. ... I will say that questioning if the Romans crucified one certain Jew would have been a more valid point had it not come from the instigator, and/or had some real work gone into it.
Conduct: con
The description defines pro having to waive the final round, which he did not do; thus, a conduct demerit. Nazi comparisons are always an ugly thing, which tempted me to move this back to a tie.
FF and worse... “Out of 1405 words, my opponent’s case has only 60 words that are not straight, blatant plagiarism. This in of itself is enough to warrant my opponent instantly losing this round.”
FF
See comments:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1315/comment_links/21036
Gist:
The debate ends up favoring non-existence of any creator deity, largely by cons own arguments as flipped by pro. Pro’s arguments on the other hand were in large part intentionally dropped for disproving God, so there’s not much of a contest left…
This vote is primarily advice for pro (or anyone wishing to learn from his mistakes).
While I congratulate pro for sweeping improvements (in that he's at least acknowledging the opposing case), a statement like "the data you provide is inaccurate its wrong irrlevant and not pertainant to the qustion at hand" needs to be followed or preceded by strong justification for why it's wrong and irrelevant. Which is a shame, because I actually see the attempt at doing that, but we voters do not quite take everything on face value of all opinions are equal...
"1)comparing nations is like comparing apples and oranges most undeveloped nations..." calling the UK and Canada underdeveloped is laughable (contextually, those were the counter examples con used, so the only ones in need of being challenged). Also trying to refute comparing nations, is to disagree with using social science to draw the conclusion to your case you are trying to support. The next point talks about how wrong it would have been if con compared the USA to countries he or she did not use in the comparison... At that point, you've lost my attention to assume the list of points is more than just a Gish Gallop to be skipped.
Using "much of the date you provided was simply incorrect" as not simply a closing statement, but an entire closing round, is in spirit conceding the absence of supporting evidence for your case.
Con on the other hand pretty well won with the simple statement "this debate is about whether or not strict gun laws reduce crime. In regards to this debate, the amount of deaths caused is irrelevant." He of course preceded it with evidence of the UK and Canada, otherwise it would be a nice reminder but not a game changer.
Interpreting the resolution:
Two-part resolution; first that God designed animals, second that the coloring was intelligent.
Gist:
Pro makes an argument by assertion, con asks for actual evidence.
Had pro not repeated the same basic things, but instead sought to provide the evidence requested, I would give this debate to him. As is, con wins on grounds of BoP (pro showed that these colors would make sense if intelligently done, but never sought to provide verification of that, or worse verification that God did it as the resolution mandates).
1. Weasels are white
Comparing them to snow was a decent opening
Countered with evidence that this was non-sequitur due to the same logic could equally be used against God (if I understand correct, someone might more easily get away with a crime due to the right hair color?); which admittedly fell flat, but it was against a non-convincing point anyway.
2. Pikachu is yellow
Made that way by artistic choice.
Countered with it being confirmed as an artistic choice, unlike the things God is supposed to have colored.
Back and forth of the same thing.
3. Cat ears and stripes and spots
I think pro was saying Jesus is visible in the ears of cats? He said cat ears somehow prove Jesus, whom had zero to do with this debate.
Con lightly mocked this off topic Jesus talk, then pulled the debate back to the topic by asking for proof it was from God. He then went on to ask for video evidence of God shaping and coloring the ears, as we can do for t-shirts (pro compared glorious cat ears to shirts). Plus a short explanation that these traits are passed down genetically, thus unlikely to be painted on by God each time.
(a picture of a tortoiseshell cat would have won this... actually it would have won the whole debate... even pointing out that the pictures of cats had asymmetrical patterns could have done that)
4. Lack of argument
Con counters that an argument for creation has not been established to then weight if the choices were truly intelligent or not, when compared against the competing theory that they developed such variety by chance and natural selection (which tends to be very intelligent, but this did not come up).
---
Arguments:
See above review of key points. No argument in favor of God being the one to do the coloring was offered, thus even if we buy that the colors were painted on, we have nothing to suggest that God did it. Pro is making the affirmative claim, and a huge one at that, to which he needs to offer evidence to raise above the null hypothesis.
Conduct:
I was never distracted from the debate by violations, so this is firmly within the tied range.
The debate started with a grammatical mistake, and it took awhile to correct it. Sex and Gender are different things...
Anyway, pro accidentally conceded the debate in the first sentence: "you are male , or female or defective" which is quite clearly three options. He ended with an implied threat that if more than two genders exist than God does not, and God not existing would destroy our society; which was all pretty senseless.
Con on the other hand offered sources to show that the gender norms are a weird and non-binary concept, with existence of more than two culturally recognized throughout history in places such as "Mesopotamia, Ancient Greece, India, etc" confirming on many levels that there are more than two.
Nine integrated sources gives con too much of a lead to be dismissed when compared to zero integrated sources. A good highlight from con was the one on suicide rates, which showcased why pro's ideas are outright dangerous.
Neither were good, but on this I can't fault con for the level of copy/paste he engaged in, when pro was actually worse in that respect.
"you need to prove that god created dna the burden of proof is on you ... every bit of data you produce indicates life is complex it is, very , it took billions of years to get that way, that isn't proof of a god ... there are many other way to explain the things you claim only god can explain"
Pro never tried to prove God, which as con pointed out, is needed on these debates to then point to his handiwork and proof that he measured anything. If he does not first exist, he cannot have measured anything.
Advice:
Pro, write new points related to your resolutions.
Con, at least learn how to click the little quotation mark above the text window.
FF
"i concede sorry"
Very confusing but thankfully brief debate.
Pro forfeited every round after the first (a technical FF), but in the first round he conceded.
Con forfeited every round.
FF.
And pro technically conceded in a forum post (I'm grading his debates based on their content, but it's less bad than it would be otherwise).
80% forfeiture, con had three rounds to defend their case or assault pro's, this is a pretty overwhelming problem.
Pro's appeal to tradition, and pointing out how well it works for the Swiss, win pro the debate (again, in large part to it being unchallenged for so long). I also don't buy cons argument when it comes to trade, as this debate was clearly intended to be about wars (as the description showed with Afghanistan).
This debate can be summarized with a single statement from pro: "White people survived very well and thrived for many millennia without consistent contact with black people. They worked their own lands, they built their own towns, and they made many scientific and engineering discoveries. Unfortunate as the history of imperialism is, you don't conquer people by being weak and helpless."
Which con's counter boils down to this statement: "My opponent is simply in denial at this point because he isn't making any sense what-so-ever." Which is no counter at all, merely a denial.
If con was correct, it would be a very easy thing to prove. Instead they talked about things like music, which do not relate to survival.
Conduct for claimed powers of mind reading, as exemplified with accusing pro of being "short-tempered" for the very act of arguing the other side; which on a debate is what the instigator requested he do.