Total votes: 1,434
See previous vote, with the following expansion to S&G (I stand by the original, but I am not against amending since two users had a problem):
Con had a complete absence of the correct punctuation, missing capitalization on gibberish sentences which seemed to be lacking at least their first parts, and more...
An important thing is that this is not a case of "one or two minor spelling mistakes." This is a case of the magnitude as a percentage of arguments. Con makes a case that there is "a bit" floating somewhere, but never attempts to be comprehensible by explaining where it is, or even what it is in terms of values (very important on a math debate). He even calls the very existence of the number one, nonsense: "Nonsense 1." With a comma in between, the term "nonsense" would be separate, thus referring maybe to pro's argument, instead of referring to the single most basic number in any counting system.
Con proceeds to proclaim that this debate was not about numbers at all, but about "hairs," which is incoherent already, but they were even more incoherently being "split" in some undefined 'literal' way never hinted at.
Remember, S&G is not just spelling, but grammar as well. If every one of your sentences make no sense in relation to anything else, there's a good chance the grammar of word choices have failed.
FF
Con did not know the difference between sex and gender, it's a common confusion, but surely he realized there would be some counter argument...
Azerbaijan = AZ, Armenia = AR
Gist:
I am not convinced I would want to live in either, but AZ sounds better by a host of standards shown.
1. Education and Academic achievement: AZ
AZ has somewhat better schooling. A lesser rate of teachers or GDP investment doesn’t matter if the outcome is not favorable (con does better by later pointing out it’s “only a 0.12 difference”; however this is a comparison debate, so a little is still a win for this section).
AZ has a noble prize for something in quantum mechanics. (I do not buy the USSR counter argument; if we go that route we may as well claim neither country has plumbing due to the Romans having built the aqueduct...).
AR had... Sorry New York City had a really good female engineer who was the first to graduate at Columbia, and they gave her a medal (it’s cool, but the same people giving her the medal mitigates its significance). New York City also had the inventor of the MRI machine.
2. Quality of life: AZ
AZ comes ahead, and this seems to be unchallenged.
3. Homicide Rate: AZ
Unchallenged
4. Geography and Demographics: AZ
AZ is bigger with more people.
AR has more diverse natural resources, but AZ does better on the most important ones (to include much more clean water, having 77.7 v. 7.7 km^3 per capita. On oil, AR does not even make the list)
5. Democracy/Media/Crimes: AZ
The crimes committed while so free and democratic were unchallenged. The relevance of them being free and democratic was successfully challenged, pro even used pro’s own metrics to show that AZ is more free and democratic (by the outcome used to measure those things... a flawed standard), which con mistook for a concession.
6. Health: tie
AR does better on infant mortality, and obesity among children at age 5 (their adult population did not fare so well; and contradictorily they suffer greater rates of malnourishment).
---
Arguments:
See above review of key points. AZ just comes ahead by too many of the measures in question.
FF
"Pro's argument is largely a non-sequitur - that is to say, that even if pro's claims were true, it does not logically follow that God, or some other being must have measured them." Pro then drops this. Con extends: "Pro's argument is once again entirely non-sensical, and, once again, he fails to address how any of his points explain why a creator must exist."
Without addressing that key rebuttal by con of even implying a creator, it leaves the resolution as an impossibly until such time as pro first proves God exists to have done said measurements.
1. "stronger other economic indicators"
This felt like an assertion. A couple quotes from the article, like "Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has grown 7 times more under Democratic presidents" would have made this a fantastic point.
2. "Blue states ... generate most of the nations wealth"
Big claims need big proof, and the evidence tossed on did not match up with the conclusion (covarience does not imply a specific one caused the other). Still the assertion was not challenged adequately, so it's taken at face value.
3. "no state in the usa implements left wing economic policy"
I don't buy this moving the goalpost semantic Kritik of the terms not being defined. Worse, my rejection of it by naming it just explained it better than it did across four rounds.
Pro gets this for showing there is some connection between left wing policies (AKA democratic or liberal policies) and better wealth in their states. Had there been a sensical counter argument instead of a weird non-sequitur, con might have taken this (as always, assuming pro did not in turn strengthen his case).
FF
See comments:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1395/comment_links/19864
Gist:
Let me be blunt: Con is correct but tried to treat this as a free win. Pro took the material and argued the uphill battle against a near truism.
Plagiarism. Very ironic since pro is arguing that if God exists it would have been impossible for that to occur, unless he is somehow greater than God to overcome the will of an all powerful all knowing being...
Side note: A much better comparison can be found at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbBMVa2A68s
Cats are way better, but the debate goes to con. We grade performance, not who we think is right.
Grading cats and dogs on the metrics listed...
Nyan Cat: cats
I left this playing in the background while writing this. It could have used some actual analysis during the introduction, but it was surprisingly effective.
The counter of the existence of Nyan Dog, fell a bit flat as it was clearly just trying to imitate a cat, serving as a callback to how awesome cats are.
Strength: dogs
This was close. The strongest cat dominates the the strongest dog, plus the 9 lives (to source called it a myth, but further explained how awesome cats are at surviving what would kill any dog), but the population angle and leveraging the strength via teamwork gives this to dogs.
Success: dogs
What is and is not success was not really defined...
The total mass argument was a bit non-sequitur.
The adapting to change link showed dogs letting their form be changed so much; team cat could have leveraged that with cats not needing to change but changing us instead, but failed to do so.
This ends up going to dogs.
Service: dogs
This could have so easily been leveraged against the success argument... Instead pro completely dropped it, giving the full point to con.
He accidentally brought up the sub-point of it of depression, but failed to show that cats are the equal to dogs in this, merely that they help with it (which dogs were already shown to help more than cats, so why even repeat cats involvement here unless having evidence they're somehow better? Perhaps use that parasite lowering out fear, thus making us better.)
Mind Control: cats
Con majorly and repeatedly stabbed himself in the foot on this. He argued that cats have gotten away with it, means it's not a victory for them; and then argues that dogs are disease vectors in a problematic way for us... The thing is what cats spread is strictly beneficial to them, while a dog spreading rabies gets a dog put down.
Evolution: off topic
Depression: see service
C1: Life Expectancy is A Poor Predictor of Dying Cultures
Wholly untouched by pro.
C2: Culture is Changing, Not Dying
Wholly untouched by pro. Con made a pretty nuanced case, showing that cultural trends go away and come back (he used corporate greed; if doing this again I suggest using disco, as seen with the 2000's Pop bands which would have fit right in).
C3: Drugs
I am unsure how pro intended to anchor this one bit for a win. A slight fluctuation in life expectancy, doesn't mean it'll continue and shorten out lives in 10 in about 300 years (his own evidence showed this, citing that this decline was the first time it had happened in a hundred years...). All pro really showed was that parts of our culture like drugs, which unless drugs actually kill them all rapidly (all those young people at once), won't lead to any cultural demise.
BoP:
This is just for pro... The secret to using BoP is to not argue about it so much, just do your job in the debate and it will fulfill itself. Experienced debaters like con will throw a quick sentence at it, but he also spaced that out from his argument, us voters see it's part of the usual preamble and know whats there, so don't even read it; we care about the back and forth debate. Technicalities like it only matter if the debate is close enough to need a tie-breaker.
Sources:
Pro did not seem to understand his own source material working against his points, even as he quoted it... This is a a fantastic improvement from him, but still needs work to not self-sabotage.
Con used various, integrated into his case via their implications being quickly explained within the context of the date. The one about the US Military getting involved to help the rich manipulate the market, was quite enjoyable, and proved sustained culture across generations in spite of some people dying.
Conduct:
Forfeiture (50% means people can just vote based on this).
Goes to the side that offered an argument rather than a single sentence assertion. FF
This debate touches on the concept of opportunity cost, trading one thing for another at some expense to other things you might want. Pro seems to argue quality of life, and con counters that if it's at the expense of forcing you how to live it, that's at the direct expense to freedom of choice (particularly related to how we spend out hard earned money).
The main failing in pro's case was not highlighting data points, particularly what exact definition of freedom he was using and ensuring his sources were using the same (or a compatible) one.
S&G:
Seriously, put definitions into the description. If not done, than there's no point complaining about the other side introducing a fair definition.
Sources:
So sources need to be integrated into arguments, not just tossed on at the end like a drunk text.
Pro could not even explain what GNI or PPP stands for, while referencing them from a source. This blunder of source spam tips the balance on sources to con for using pro's own source to undermine has case potentially being valid. Pro actively chose to drop everything (even in the one round he posted something), leaving this a no contest as con proved with GPD as a metric that the USA's model does better, and there were no other metrics for comparison introduced.
Conduct for FF.
1. Some conspiracy theorist...
Pro offers it, and con disproves the validity of it on several grounds.
2. Bill Gates said...
Con proves that Bill Gates has since updated his beliefs, and that software is more advanced than us as of 2001; refuting the idea that something more advanced is required to make something less advanced (like tool progression, we did not start at supercomputers and work our way down to the hammer).
3. Our DNA mutates every time we sin
Con refutes the crazy source for this, and pro offers no reason we should believe it in light of that.
3 (bonus) DVD salesman is greater than God
Con twists pro's words into this, and pro stands by it... Nicely done pro.
4. spam.
5. spam.
I've reviewed the main points, and am not reviewing more spam which doesn't in any way connect to the resolution.
Sources:
Con did extensive research to challenge pro's sources, and even used pro's own Harvard source to prove that he was blatantly misrepresenting the data while trying to move the goalpost away from complexity, and failing even by that standard.
"spacefaring lifeforms might just be biding their time" ... This was by far the strongest point by pro, and it still fails to meet the lowest standard of BoP to imply that any aliens (Canadians don't count) ever visited or even observed our existence. Con of course argued first that BoP is on pro, which was successful to a high enough degree that the rest of his case was needless (it was nice of him to explain things to pro, but not something I need to review).
Sources for flipping pro's own source to show "no evidence for alien intelligence currently exists." Pro's own offered evidence says he's wrong, and that was not overcome. Otherwise con literally school pro, teaching the basic concepts pro needed to use to build a case.
Conduct:
While con gave an implicit concession ("as much as i want there to be space aliens i know there is no solid proof"), he kept arguing, so he still loses conduct for the forfeiture.
Gist:
Pro just dropped way too much...
Arguments:
BoP is on pro, he asserts they’re not harmful, but goes on to list that they sometimes are harmful. Con counters with thousands of people tortured and killed even by the stated non-harmful ones. Pro questions if that might be against the religions in question, which doesn’t mean they don’t commit it, merely it’s hypocritical thus harmful to their organizations, in addition to being harmful to external people they harmed.
Sources:
Not assigning points for this (not enough of a lead)...
Pro you should look at how con used sources, they were an integrated part of his case and discussed, not merely thrown on at the end as if an afterthought.
S&G:
Formatting could use some work. For starters, please don’t block quote above what you’re responding to: https://tiny.cc/DebateArt
Conduct:
No issues.
Pro's final round statement was not topical, leaving this as a full forfeit (every round, or every round after the first). Plus lying about objective reality is a huge pet peeve of mine (had a creeper obsessed with me back on DDO, he made up a bunch of statements I was supposed to have made, and then cried about how unfair objective reality was for discriminating against him via not warping to what he wants to have happened...).
See comments:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1136/comment_links/19674
Admittedly this is a case where I wish I could assign one less point for arguments, as a way to give credit for how good a job con did against the odds he faced.
See comments:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1217/comment_links/19545
Gist:
From various direct human rights abuses to outright sponsoring terrorism, SA was proven to be highly immoral and wicked. There was no counter case, con forfeited for over a month (60% of the debate I might add)...
Con was doing better, but he conceded.
Hopefully they'll do a rematch.
While not everything always needs to be responded to, pro kept dropping the wide sweeps of cons concise case.
Con repeatedly pointed out the soul issue, and the Imago Dei not applying the animals (which feeds into genesis of us lording over them rather than being equals). Pro's only (eventually) response was to say that there might have been a translation error.
Whereas pro's case was disproven on the grounds that it implied a vague possibility for reinterpretation, rather than actually proving anything.
Concession.
To improve formatting (thus win a lot more debates): https://tiny.cc/DebateArt
So I'm pretty sure con was just trolling this. Conceding the resolution ("I know that you can have a bad quality of life but a good standard of living"), but insisting he won the debate in a weird type of lawyering Kritik.
It's clear they are related things, but pro succeeded in showing the measurements differ (USA has a higher GDP per capita, but ranks much lower in quality of life). A con case could have been made focusing on inequality in wealth distribution accounting for that (pun intended), but such was not done (instead he argued both terms contain some of the same letters).
At the end of the day, the evidence offered makes them seem correlated but different.
BoP is on pro, but his opening was relevant.
For this type of debate, the contender's job is the cast doubt. He missed the obvious thing of introducing say India as a potential country to become dominant; this leaves the debate as just China v. USA in terms of growth rates...
This debate could have been better with some more direct comparisons (fertility rate in China is low, how is it in the US or India?), and the implementation of better forecasting techniques. The oil issue was a pretty good one for the USA (the explanation of Britain in particular). The GDP growth of China was remarkable, but the rate of slowing suggests it is not sustainable to carry it past the USA. The civil unrest is a valid threat to any predictions about China's future, particularly with the source putting it side by side with knife attacks in Palestine. And finally the number of millionaires (which con countered with a population comparison, making it a problem of greater inequality brought on by the communist system) even if unchallenged, would not override everything else.
In short, con used evidence to cast sufficient doubt on the prediction.
Pro offers 7 standards. Con eventually challenges the economy as slightly favoring Mexico, and that Brazil has a bad leader who is letting the rain-forest burn to bolster his economy... This leaves cultural impacts, military, size, personal freedoms, and average standard of living untouched. By weight, even had pro not defended against cons points, these do not bring them even close to being equal.
BoP...
Seriously, pro never talked about either word in question in the resolution, so BoP could not be met. I did however enjoy that classic Simpson's bit.
The con case is the definitions of the words, showing they have meaning, negating the resolution until such time as pro offers evidence they are indeed misused (oh they are, at least by some groups, but pro has a duty to show it, and to show it).
Some credit to pro for a very concise case...
Nanny-State:
This argument was that people should not be free, that someone else should make the decisions for them; but failed to link to any direction this lack of freedom should take and why.
Obesity:
Con argues that obesity would not drop to the rate someone would argue it would from the tax. Sadly this highlighted the BoP failure from pro, as con's arguments were based around a better debater who would build such a case.
Wealth Disparity:
Con argues that income inequality would be increased by the tax, potentially even leading to isolated cases of starvation. This is a fantastic stand alone reason to reject it.
---
Sources:
Con, please integrate your sources a little more (the only ones that should be listed, are the ones directly referenced; I am still awarding the point for those)...
So a single quote, vs a well researched case such as a Business Wire report on the potato chip industry which the tax would harm: no contest (while I don't believe a tax on potato chips would actually lead to anyone starving, the claim was made and supported, and then unchallenged).
Conduct:
While pro's behavior was suspect, being poor at arguing is not a crime.
Yet another troll debate abusing Poe's Law to mock religious people...
First of all, credit to pro for the improvements on S&G.
I admit I enjoyed the religious people bleed rainbows opening, but I do wish it had pictures...
So the core of pro's case is that DNA doesn't change, except he argues it spontaneously changes every time we drink or have sex, we pass down altered DNA more likely to repeat those things (which would mean gay people don't exist, and everyone is trying to bleep their own mothers). Con of course lays on proof that DNA does change generation to generation, and links it back to our most likely origin.
Con also counters that the claim God did it, begs for other such gods to be considered; so he brings in the FSM and Aliens. Pro's defense via assertion against the FSM is that all gods are "each Demon calling themselfs god" [sic], and fails to offer any suggestion for why God would not be one of these. Con merely points out that Satan hasn't been proven (and no, Santa Clause does not prove Satan, even if he was inspired by the myth, myths inspiring more myths proves nothing).
Con also offers a syllogism, to which pro drops; that alone could cost pro the arguments (if everything above did not already).
Sources: The existence of a guy named Pastor Chuck v. government and educational sites about evolution; one is just kind of there not doing anything, and the other supports arguments.
Forfeiture, and what looks like a concession (concessions get conduct from me, I like everyone's time being saved)...
To actually get this debate to happen, you two should probably do it on the forums or otherwise, and then copy/paste the finished product into a debate for voting.
Con demonstrated that the execution of the rules was not done in a bullshit manner (citing a debate which seems to have inspired this one). He did this via showing multiple votes, and explaining where the line in quality fell. The implication is that it would actually be bullshit to not insist people read the debates before they vote (and then to give minimal proof).
I was not convinced that rules are not elitism (that something is elitism, doesn't mean it's a bad thing), but pro complained about that rather than showing it, and never tried to meet BoP on either point (1. that it's elitist, and 2. that it's bullshit).
Con refuted pro's case with the example of Venezuela, as that happened (and is happening) in present day, so if premature than then it cannot be assumed the world will ever be mature in the right ways for the socialism to not fail. Of course apparently it's actually doing great, as people living there "have no cares only rainbows and free ice cream."
A good follow up debate would be that Norway is socialist, as pro made some assertions around Norway secretly being that, and were they warranted (supported by even minimal evidence) he could have won.
I would have been genuinely interested in learning what technology advancements would make socialism a preferable system (or even a feasible one), the debate was setup for that, but then it never happened.
The highlight of pro's case was that he can't be expected to predict future events... Unfortunately this debate was about a prediction of future events.
Con on the other hand introduced the topic, and explained such factors as Germany being both opposed to immigration and suffering an aging population, making them unlikely to save others from the unspecified future disaster.
Sources for such things as Pew research supporting cons informational claims, making this debate rise above the level of base assertions. In contrast, pro offered zero evidence.
Pro says change is needed. That is his entire case. One that does not favor any course of action over any other. (showing why socialism would improve things was basically required for BoP and was not done). Con introduces a competing system which lifts people out of poverty (capitalism), and explains that socialism both never works and has killed millions.
Sources for the integrated sources from con, such as WSJ debunking the concept of socialism as having never worked, thus being wholly unable to fix the planet. Whereas pro had none, nor did he offer any real challenge to cons (since con did not cite the black book, I am unsure what pro was even talking about in the attempted refutation).
Conduct for multiple forfeitures.
A non-sequitur instead of a case. Pro never once offers evidence to even imply of the guy being alive, he merely points to the death being suspicious. Con points this out, thus wins.
Massive BoP failure. Pro basically tries the Chewbacca Defense to prove God, without ever showing evidence which implies God to even be more likely than Pikachu.
Pro again goes into his numbers thing, trying to say that the random number of fingers and toes is proof that God counted them (and badly for those of us with six instead of five). And that mutation is the blame if the count is off, but he insists such is impossible because God does not allow it to happen (con wisely points out that we have a name for it because of how often it does... so pro's argument is if God then no mutation, but since mutation therefore no God.).
Con makes an unchallenged case for selective pressures causing some variants to die out, resulting in the limited color pallet we see.
Sources go to con for flipping pro's own source to be a concession that pro is wrong (he would not have read it and shared it with us knowing that unless he agreed that he's wrong...). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3885174/
See comments:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1355/comment_links/19200
CVB bill.
I would not do this, but 6 hours left, so no guarantee any moderator will be on.
The resolution adds the 'must' qualifier, raising the BoP requirements (similarly, 'probably' would have lowered it; which really should have been done to suite the limited evidence... actually a 'might' qualifier would have been best).
Arguments: Pro makes some claims about observed things and a didit fallacy, con counters them. Con adds a three part case against them, which pro wholly drops (to include #2, which pre-refuted his assertions in the following round... that pro goes on to complain that he couldn't understand the pre-refutation of his case, does not bode well).
I was left without a clue what this M field is supposed to be (maybe something about Magneto from the X-Men?), which is the below the bare minimum this debate should have accomplished.
Pro: next time walk us through the scientific method on it, to include the falsifiability (given the scientific nature of this, I am giving sources for con providing links and explanations to improve your future arguments... and yeah, sources not worked into a case aren't within consideration).
Pro decided to offer a copy/pasted non-sequitur instead of a valid argument, when this was raised as a point he did some more copy/pasting instead of responding to the the holes in his logic; which is both awful conduct and failing to attempt to win arguments. Plus with the twisted skull evidence pro specifically asked for, this debate ended on an implied concession from him (pro inferred that if he's wrong that evidence would exist, that evidence was then provided...).
Gist:
Unclear resolution (in the comment section I accidentally called resolution RFD), and a lack of effort from pro. This became basically an educational lesson for pro from con, rather than a true debate.
1. Definitions
This should have been handled in the description. This is a major area of importance, which con gave, and pro wholly dropped (which translates to accepted at face value, ironically part of con’s definition for intellectual laziness).
2. Facts
We should make up our own mind “based on the facts” with a handy link to how evolution is a fact, while somehow arguing that it is just a theory (the very laziness the source uses to conclude that we should stop trying to explain the difference between fact and scientific theory). Con uses this area to explain the scientific method, and the results we would be stupid to disbelieve (cell phones, etc.).
3. Scientists are fallible
This could have done with an example or two of disproven former theories... Con uses this to basically say it would be worse than intellectually lazy to dismiss subject matter experts, it would be intellectual suicide.
---
Arguments:
See above review of key points. This was a three-round debate, to which pro wholly dropped one round, basically dropped another (only responding to three lines from pro’s argument), basically leaving this as an FF (con won on arguments, but this write-up is me being nice).
See comments:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1330/comment_links/19024
Gist:
More an attempt at hiding behind ambiguity and moving the goalpost than a real debate.
Concession
With the FF pro's case was left unchallenged.
See comments:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1282/comment_links/18910
Gist:
Pretty hard to follow, but I could make sense of four contentions to which I am confident con won, plus one that I am undecided on.