Total votes: 1,434
Essentially pro decides to flip the table to end the game, and do the nuclear option of accusing con of accusing him of being a white supremacist... Since con did not do that , nor anything that could be reasonably mistaken for it, and pro dropped all points to make this gambit... Yeah, giving this one to con.
The comparison of logic to bad logic used by douch bags, is not even an accusation of being such a douch bag (nor even a white supremacist; which some of said douch bags no doubt are, but no connection to all of them was even implied)
The initial start to a writeup may be viewed at: https://www.debateart.com/debates/5808/comments/62035
...
Before that end, it was a fine discussion of a complex topic. I was viewing performances as pretty much tied. Maybe leaning to con's favor due to primary BoP resting with pro, but even then not by much.
I take this to be more of a contest or riddle type of debate.
Pro casts a wide net, but con by sticking to a single point slips through Trump's aims as far as they are known to pro.
Pro's best point was that con was avoiding his argument, but then when con made it crystal clear to one single right he did much the same by not addressing how Trump would use his power for or against people with that issue.
Either one could have dominated this debate with a single source for their side endorsing the right to transition. As is, both arguments are weak.
Giving legibility to con, as he made a strong case on that impacting the debate... And I indeed liked the unicorns vs horses analogy... However, as a voter I was not particularly moved by the existence of a minor typo (even in a key location). Plus there seemed to be no attempt to get it fixed prior to accepting the debate (rap vs rape as a debate example; granted good conduct isn't required, but if you're going to make a mountain out of an issue, the ability to say you tried to get it corrected helps).
Pro was also able to point out that any ambiguity in the setup was clarified in the description: "The Pro side will be arguing that AI is ruining the art of debate and that AI is making humanity stupid in general. And the con side will argue that using AI does not ruin debate, but it enhances it in some respect."
Pro also made points about diminished thought, and how the AI tools are just regurgitating existing thought rather than advancing the medium. This was all dropped for the hyper-focus on a typo.
So yes, arguments to pro, legibility to con (kinda as a style point or kudos points, since I did enjoy reading it, and they put their focus there)
Forfeiture... And waiving is the term. Forfeiting is not showing up.
Concession
Concession.
Really a victory by style, of using Adam West's implicit arguments on this matter.
Plus forfeiture.
Forfeiture
Forfeiture
Pro lists many benefits to explain why he believes it is encouraged…
But this debate boils down to a kritik of awful parents exist.
Pro is correct that his description accounted for that. Con would have done better to point out that “but still the turtle moves.” Which is to say the rule is denying the truth, so should be dismissed.
The bigger problem I’m of course seeing with shitty parents, is that they introduce times children ought to not have that value; regardless of if they’re abused into believing it anyways. The debate is after all on if it’s a generally encouraged value, not if it ought to be (or even if better values like freedom exist). So yes, the kritik doesn’t shift the needle much even if allowed.
A better tactic would have been to point out that it’s often reduced to a vice instead of a value (not merely in the extreme outliers), and that most children get told of the value without being properly taught it (usually exposed to it the once or twice a year they attend church). Maybe even leverage divorce rates, and assume that most of them get taught to hate their parents (a bad stereotype, but a potential fun line of reasoning).
Forfeiture.
First it must be said in defense of con, that someone can play devil's advocate for any topic. This topic in particular doesn't have many avenues of defense, so credit for effort.
Sources (tied):
Pro was the only side to give any, but they were not integrated. It was more like a further reading suggestion.
Legibility (tied):
No overwhelming errors from either side.
Conduct (tied):
The comment section has heated up (a reported comment is actually what got me to read this), but nothing particularly bad, and certainly nothing crossing the line into cheating (aka voter manipulation).
Arguments (pro):
Essentially con's case defuses down to some tiny percent of child marriages are genuinely happy. He drops all for this, and (apologies if I missed it) gives no defense to the obvious question of why not wait for maturity?
Pro's case could have been stronger. The global action needed was weak, and had con done a good attack against that it could have cost pro the debate. As is, pro is easily able to show that child marriages are a human rights violation.
---
C1 Human Rights
Pro argues "it takes away children's futures and the potential" and elaborates that they lose their freedom and ability to go to school to build a future for themselves.
Con counters that they still exist... Characters in fiction not understanding figurative speech is great, but in real life it comes off as purely obtuse.
Con moves on to dropping all of this for the happiness angle, without first showing that it's healthy... And again and again and again...
Consent:
Pro argues children are too inexperienced to give informed consent.
Con counters that it's somehow a contradiction that makes child marriage impossible. Also that kids don't consent to schools Con also argues that not being forced into marriage is slavery.
Pro uses more figurative speech, equating forced into a marriage without informed consent to be putting them in chains. School builds them tools to handle things, an is less complex than a marriage.
Happiness:
Con argues some children are happy being married.
Pro counters with a eating nothing but candy analogy, and an IED analogy.
Harm:
To heighten earlier points, pro built out some harm: 'Child marriage causes poverty and gender inequality. A lot of times it results in early pregnancy, high health risks and economic dependency which in turn, force girls into a disadvantage cycle that can last for a lifetime"
Foregone conclusion.
Pro has just one sentence each round after the first, leaving whole contentions entirely unaddressed.
Con has several paragraphs per round, and caught things like pro missing his points.
Bit of a narrow victory. Con delayed multiple important responses into the final round (which pro would be unable to respond to), which he then forfeited.
This debate is about feminism, not female supremacy.
I think pro was very clever in flipping cons chief tactic of focusing on how in Islam women are actually superior to men, treated better, with more rights. The later jab about what Islam does in practice when it rules countries, would have been much better with an example or two (boarding a school buses and shooting girls in the head for example, or a more tame women aren’t allowed to drive or otherwise have any unescorted freedom of movement in other countries).
Pro was wise to bus Christianity a bit, with the level of stupid equality for all people regarding the afterlife.
Con for his part was quite well composed, but he spent all his time trying to find sources without defending the core problem that if his case was to be believed then men (comparatively) really suffer in Islam which isn’t feminism.
Forfeiture.
Adriana Lima (pro):
Good example, a true 11 dating a mere 8... Pro was able to point to how awesome the guy is, and con's reply included Adriana stating "he's very athletic" which seems to be factors on pro's scale.
Never Give Up (con):
So an 8 marrying a 4 (maybe even as low as 3?), that goes much better for con. Pro's defense that the wife thought there was something cute about him, doesn't confirm it was a rare physical attraction or any other part of his scale, and con is able to explain it away as an attraction to his personality (which is the point of the debate right, not that women marry men they aren't attracted to, but if they are capable of romantic attraction).
List of Famous Hunks (pro):
I am not even reading this. There's no way it can help con's case. Maybe they have good personalities in addition to being incredibly hot?
Beyoncé (n/a):
"Any place or thing in the universe can be up to 104% perfect. That's how you got Beyoncé."
-Michael, The Good Place
You can't put her on the scale. Every guy is beneath her by all standards.
...
The big problem for pro was he made the big declaration of NEVER, but let con wholly lead the debate. If redoing this, each side should be limited to a couple examples at the start to contrast, rather than allowing room for Gish Gollops.
Concession... And due to Bill Maher, I can't see that hand emoji when discussing Trump the same way again.
Con had a nice Kritik, but didn't follow through when a definition was shown which invalidated the claim of the subject matter not exsting.
Forfeiture.
Concession
Forfeiture.
Forfeiture.
Forfeiture.
Pro makes some nice assertions that he believes all living things have the equal rights, but con makes arguments with the backing of authority. A bit of a K to the topic, more of ambiguous, but that still takes the day.
It could be viewed as a foregone conclusion or a concession, I am choosing the latter.
Con dropped everything after R1, and pro identified a key dropped point from R1 anyways... But the overwhelming politeness makes an exception for winning conduct through good behavior.
Sources are not awarded since the sources are to the subject, so nothing unexpected or exceptional. I cannot merely award this for whomevers interpretation I prefer.
( I am treating this as a comedy debate, so not how I’d vote on any real debate)
Pro does boilerplate arguments…
Con counters with the existence of anime girls, which becomes what the debate is about.
Pro hurts his conduct by saying they’re not real, this point finishes sliding over with cons final round surrender; however con misspelled No, too many O’s, so it hurt his conduct.
Arguments were of course won with the reminder that this is anime not hentai, so ugly bastards are out.
Lastly, sources for the detailed research con out in and definitely shared with us… those demographics may have been his downfall, but there is no denying the quality of sources (which may not have been many, but quality over quantity)
Pro could have actually carried this with some more wit. Had he responded to the flaws such as social breakdown with talk of those being a feature instead of the flaw; such as we need to follow Russia and Chinas examples of perfect fair starvation for minority groups they didn’t like in their population… plus with 35 million chickens, fir everyone to have even half a chicken each we need to drop the population just a few digits.
As is, cons challenges easily refute the paper thin case built purely upon circular reasoning
Forfeiture
Forfeiture
Sometimes that is the best strategy (concession)
Pro's case was amazing, and glad to see he could adapt when robot was disproven. Could have been improved by showing a gecko or something bypassing the human check.
con did disprove the robot, and while he doesn't need to disprove everything else there's still a few factors missing... Like for comedy, taking a joke of a debate like this so suriously was amusing, but in too disturbing of a way for me to count it as a significantly favorable argument.
Trying to weigh this, I am feeling very null to both sides.
Let's see, the whole yield thing is a figure of speech. It can mean surrender, but it can also be a yielding of the floor to let the opponent speak.
This is supposed to be comedy, but neither made me laugh.
The discussion of happy felt like it was dodging the question....
Yeah, whole lot of nothing.
Con opens with a reasonable declaration. He builds up anarchy, only to expose the fatal flaw of those damned anarchists!
Pro seems to miss this, and pretty much just says if the anarchists are all good, then bad things won't happen. Plus the government sucks (I would have learned heavily on this). .
Remember that for proposal debates a quality opening round must address the Why and How.
If the Why is missing, they are easily countered by the lack of benefit.
If the How is missing, they are easily countered with impracticality and limited resources.
ANyways, con shows how anarchy leads back to government, with the need for innovation and more importantly: food.
Pro gives a reply focused on the government sucking for violating rights, but ends on the issue of food that it's ultimately a choice (this is not building toward anarchy working).
I feel for them in the next round, since I see how never happens also means never works, but it's a good comeback that basically it's hypothetical of could it work even if it couldn't happen (which is conceded to, more like pushed away from the topic under discussion).
Pro getting into the No True Scotsman was interesting, but that was also pushing anarchy further into the realm of fairies.
...
With no sense that pro's anarchy could even hypothetically happen, a lot of meaning starts to be lost. While con could have hit harder, he showed that society with governments works and implied that without do not.
Had con been a critical troll, he could have taken this.
"3) The sense of belonging is often exploited by politicians to get what they want and do horrible things in the name of religion."
He could have leaned on that, as it's very useful for corrupt politicians. The satanism argument was funny, but no benefit was demonstrated (pun intended). Had he mixed it with pro's point 3, of getting donations and such at satanic orgies, then he would have had a fighting chance.
As is, the debate boils down to a foregone conclusion. Pro outlines why religion is outdated, and con basically says hail Satan.
BoP failure. Pro only attempts to approach BoP once, with Jesus having maybe called a woman a dog, but without a source to back up that this was indeed abusive con's explanation that it was not wins (in addition to it being a single isolated incident, not enough to show a pattern).
Forfeiture.
However, both had compelling point; it’s certainly worth pondering how similar we might be to slavery (or more accurately indentured servitude).
If trying to argue this more seriously, definitions into the description will be important.
Conduct for repeated forfeitures.
This could have been a good one, as the description specifies " as opposed to minor missteps in his personal life." So HUGE missteps are a little step outside of scope.
Pro made an short contention out of the song I'm Your Angel being made by R. Kelly, and nothing bad about R. Kelly was raised, so weighting the issues presented, the only possible outcome is pro's victory.
Forfeiture.
Plus pros plan of married men all starving themselves to death, would be so beneficial for society!
As a soulless Canadian, I'll attempt to grade this...
Con forfeited less, so automatic conduct allotment.
The description tag "canada sucks like your mom" tells me right away this is intended as comedy.
The Hitler card was hilarious, the frozen waste less so, the reeducation camps (or program) was quite alarming, and the Canadian women it should have been spelled out more that the act of smoking is to suck (possibly cross it with rates of other types of sucking?). The idiots bit with the resturant did make me chuckle, and I enjoy the cherry-picked facts for so few people living there per square mile.
...
Con misses the point, trying for pure rebuttals, without cracking a joke to engage with the arguments in good faith.
E.g., calling pro sexist for complaining about Canadian women... I mean do that, but also show some Baywatch clips or something to show that they're appealing (if memory serves they average a few pounds less than their neighbors, which results in more of them being attractive by conventional standards.
Details of the reeducation don't defeat the issue with overstep on jurisdiction.
So many of the comparisons push back but do not wholly refute pro's case; a little bonus outside of those is needed if they are not bolstered more.
...
Again, this is a comedy debate, so while I'm willng to look at it by another standard, you need to come ahead by a greater amount to get past so utterly failing at the comedy,
Unassailable logic too strong for pro to contend with.
Forfeiture
Forfeiture
A rather odd concession
Forfeiture
Forfeiture
We know con list without physical evidence of it.