Total votes: 1,434
Con chose the route of cherry picking out of context, while wholly dropping the related contentions. This leaves the USA as not the leader of the free world (apparently 30th place or something).
As for there being some democratic ability within the USA, pro was able to show why it ended up being anti-democratic via going with the opposite result in elections. Again, this was not challenged (and trust me, there’s some easy counters to this).
Con does a good job, making a case with strong merit. There are several dimensions to which it aligns.
The biggest weakness in cons case was repeatedly calling a statement that if they removed the inaccurate parts it would then be accurate to be a concession.
The problem pro is able to exploit is that details and scales are not irrelevant when in comes to determining accuracy; even more so with it being on balance, rather than some subsection which has an overwhelmingly high death rate. It’s a fun caricature, which offers insight, but falls well short of being accurate.
I will add that exaggeration does not guarantee inaccuracy; but as seen with the human body and the 0.0something death rate being turned into 96%, it’s too far of a stretch.
This debate really needed a description stating it was to be from a purely religious perspective.
Con does a fun argument that life is pain, pro counters that pain is a gift from God and that God will torture any abortion victim for all eternity for the sin of having been aborted… Con questions the mental state of said God, leaving pros own arguments implying that God is evil.
Sources to pro for incredible depth of research, even if it was used against him.
FGM.
Con makes the point rather clearly, and pro offers no defense.?therefore we have a wholly evil action without any good consequence.
Pro proposes we’re in a simulation, and if in a simulation it’s more likely the map in flat like in RTS games.
While pro is able to defend mountains due to hills, tops of windmills over the ocean have no explanation within the proposed model (same with seasonality, etc.).
Conduct for forfeiture.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/4682/comments/55605
Cons assertions getting racist in the final round does not change the core of how much he lost by. Some reason for something to be illegal is needed beyond it merely being illegal; which is self evidently a circular argument, no better than defining something by itself.
very interesting read. I don’t think accurate is the right word for it but it’s a decent or even good allegory.
Pros best attack came from the glass floor game, which ruthlessly kills whomever goes first. Con defended this as a depiction of raising suicide rates. Had pro come back, I’m sure he would have hammered this for the win due to most of the country not killing themselves.
Ultimately, with pro only making arguments in a single round, he’s technically dropped every defense con raised, reducing this to a foregone conclusion.
Pro made a simple case, and fortified it with being willing to be terminated if brain dead. Con thought this was somehow a checkmate, which makes no sense to me.
In the end, we have clear reasons to believe it's ok (no brain, no related brain stuff), without a clear reason it would not be ok. Coma people exist but pro was able to show how there's a difference.
Making this debate worse, con kept obsessing over another debate. This is not said other debate, this is debate 4,666;
Conduct to pro for putting some of cons material into his own round by request.
Arguments go to con by a wide margin. Pro has the implicit metric of if already a fan, whereas con had several in a likely attempt to broaden our music taste.
I’m predictable, I love Eminem; but that appeal to what I already know for no reasons I don’t already have, are not valid for voting on a debate.
Regarding argumentation… asking how someone can argue something, is a fine bit of rhetoric, and yet it actually drops the point when someone just did.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/4552/comments/55422
In short:
Aside from pro repeating "Sex and gender are the same" like a broken record, he attempts to flip con's evidence which states "male, female or nonbinary" as proof there are only two. That set obviously contains three. While con doesn't explicitly mention it, 3 <> 2. Con hammers this home, and pro drops it, leaving "intersex" as a third gender by their own standards.
At length:
Pro makes a case reliant upon sex and gender being identical. Con dismantles this with definitions, and shows that gender is a variable social construct.
Pro counters that social constructs aren't real... This is a line of reasoning which cannot go anywhere, since language is a social construct. Misrepresenting cons definitions (which con caught and well defended) does not help this at all.
Pro points out hermaphrodites exist, con points back to sex and gender being different words.
Pro does better later with pointing out perception and reality differ. A major weakness to their case is not leading with this. As is, it's presented as a sub point mid-way into their case, after arguing people cannot do things people self-evidently do. He goes on to argue gender should be "male, female, or sometimes intersex" ... Con wastes no time in catching this, even while pointing out it's wrong when applied to gender.
Pro argues non-cisgendered people are offensive (after arguing cis-gendered shouldn't exist, which leaves me scratching my head since if we got rid of everyone not trans... 🤯). It spirals off on this side tangent, including a video of a very beautiful woman complaining about the term cis (ok, some women are offended; this doesn't support the resolution).
Conduct for forfeiture.
Forfeiture.
Call it a forfeiture or a foregone conclusion. Pro effectively missed over half the debate, leaving con to just extend repeatedly dropped points.
Null............
Con dropped the framework that Anakin is distinct from Vader, then made a lot of points against Vader... This would be like a prosecution trying to focus on how vile a crime was, and ignoring all the evidence that someone else committed it (a little like The Central Park Five).
Con also tried to argue there is more evil in him than good, and yet the definition we have for redemption is about rejecting the evil. With him dying before he could turn back to evil, redemption was attained; and pretty much if attained than it was deserved (as much as it cannot be earned).
Null......
Concession.
Concession. Also a much better setup and R1 than last time.
An angle I am surprised is not being raised in these debates, is pleasure for women.
Null......
The debate is a truism, for which con attempts to move the goalpost but fails to list any reasons why his standard should be preferred. Had Con done so, his proofs would have won out.
Forfeiture.
Wish I could penalize conduct, even while the mild insults made me laugh.
The debate was conceded, and reduced to a foregone conclusion due to only one side making a case. That said…
Con is only right about Red Pill predating Andrew Tate (and maybe the blue pill stuff, never heard of it before).
Red Pill 💊 stems from incel culture, it is not about self improvement, because women suck and won’t suck on you no matter what unless you were born muscular with a 12” erection which took the doctors eye out. Basically what con refers to as black pill. They openly believe women are a type of non-sentient animal, etc.etc. Usually some racism tossed into the mix just so they can complete failing to be more than a bad stereotype.
Black Pill refers to the conclusion for Incels of killings themselves. Studies on this cultural subset are inclusive, but Incels praise those brave enough to go swallow the black pill.
Con basically argued because they contradict each other, they can’t be said to contradict each other since they’re different.
Pro on the other hand shows the main contradiction in their lore, and defends with a movie series analogy to confirm continuing works in the same field can disagree and be disruptive due to their contradictions.
Pro goes on to show another example with Adam’s baby mammas, which con uses an appeal to not understanding it so it must be wrong…
Easy pro victory.
Nice short debate.
The way the debaters argued this reminded me of sociology vs psychology, or macro- vs micro-economics.
While this gets over applied to writing, the beginner rule of show don't tell comes up. Pro tells us that Les Mis has more and better characters, and yet only names Jean Valjean; along with it showcasing 1830's France... But what about 1830's France? And How did Jean Valjean reform? Right now, he's no better defined than Christine.
One of the few notes is that it's longer, which gives more time for character growth but not how it actually took advantage of that.
The Phantom by contrast has details about the lead character and his actions... At least enough to spur an emotional response.
Plus the details on the opera house made that seem like an additional character. And while I'll call BS on the historical angles and talk of a real ghost, said BS set the scene quite well and went unchallenged.
Without more to go on, the Phantom easily takes the win.
...
Side note: Length can be a tricky thing. Die Walküre takes 5 hours, What's Opera, Doc? Retold it in 7 minutes and IMHO did it far better.
https://vimeo.com/444002896
This is very close, I suspect with a third round pro could have sealed it.
R1 Pro gave a definition, which con flipped to define Pluto as a type of planet.
R2 pro came back to say that type of planet is not really a planet, but did not expand upon why beyond a cherry-picked dictionary entry. Con came back with an analogy about humans being able to be short part of the usual criteria but remain human.
The debate is left begging the question of why is a dwarf planet not a type of planet? Without an answer to this, con takes the win.
...
If redoing this, I advise changing the resolution to an Ought statement. Dictionaries are ever changing, so how we ought to classify Pluto is of more interest than how some people currently do today.
Unfortunately this is "A joke debate on whether Barney the purple dinosaur is the devil or not." I would prefer one aimed at yours truly.
Style
Con's description of a raided clown closet, reminded of the Lame Master from the most recent disaster of an episode of Doctor Who (https://www.cbr.com/doctor-who-modern-classic-doctors-clothes-bbc/), but I see no problem with the purple of the bowties, since bowties are cool... That said, the devil is likely hot tempered, and the opposite of cool, so it seems plausible that he would never wear one.
Spectrum
"The devil is far too clever, and would not have to resort to monotonous repetition."
Sounds like good advice for people throwing to insult each other online. So very much of it feels like spam of the same ten or so words over and over again. Hopefully the devil would do better.
Stoned
So much room for some fun rebuttals, such as "if you love your work, you're always happy, and the devil clearly loves torturing people". But alas, it was simply dropped.
666
Pro resurrected the old meme.
Con retorts that fans of the devil are obsessed with that number, suggesting Barney being more likely such a fan than the real McCoy.
Disguises
Pro details the devil can disguise himself as an angel of light, then uses Barney's incompetence at such as proof he's the devil... Like stepping on a rake, this walks into con's implicit logic for Barney being too incompetent to be the devil.
Con insults pro's eyesight for this failed comparison.
Barney ruined a generation
Apparently Barney caused a whole generation (including a couple celebrities) to be liberal.
BTW, Demi Lovato is pretty good in concert.
Con defends the celebrities with mistaken identity, tying to the previous quip about eyesight. He then agrees with Barney sucking, but uses that to leverage how the devil is probably offended at the comparison.
...
In addition to the forfeiture, con both made me laugh more, and had better logic. So by every standard he takes the win.
Concession
Concession
Basically a bunch of special pleading, including that pedophilia is or was normal if the pedo is sexy... 🤢
Full vote at:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/4533/comments/54806
Full forfeiture
Concession. Hopefully con will have time for a rematch when they're done moving.
Even while I agree with con (save in there being only one sex), they presented their argument as a final round blitz which could not be responded to.
beyond that, neither did particularly good, merely asserting their opinions.still , pro sitting there unchallenged for so long makes them win by default.
Seems like pro was just helping con with his homework… looking at just one of the points, con refutes himself with the dangers of childbirth, and then without any evidence calls himself wrong. Pro explains that con was originally correct, citing historical death rates.
Con showed that it was not premeditated (as pro's definitions required) due to accidental pregnancy, at which point pro dropped out of the debate leaving this unchallenged.
Pro does a good opening explaining that Islam means submission and peace, and is therefore superior to any other philosophy one might embrace. He goes into great detail about such things as how Muslims wake up, bath, eat, etc. It needs to be said that there can be too much detail.
Con counters with Buddhism, which is based on improvement from within instead of surrendering to external forces. They also have a focus on non-violence, and have some cool stuff that someone need not fully commit to Buddhism to receive benefit from.
Hell vs. Reincarnation:
This argument initiated by con stood out as high quality. One religion uses fear to coerce actions or be forever punished, the other believes in a cycle of rebirth we can eventually grow past.
Medicine:
Pro claims Buddhists are against use of medicine, opting to instead rely solely on thoughts and prayers (err, meditation and mindfulness).
Meditation:
Pro is able to edge out here on the comparisons, given that meditation is good, and Muslims meditate at least five times per day.
Non-violence:
Con uses Buddhism being non-violent, and pro counters with a wiki source for them being just as violent as any other religion. Pro weirdly goes on to cite how Buddhists don't kill animals, which is clearly in favor of them being far less violent (I get the point here was to make fun of Buddhist rhetoric about animal ancestors in the cycle of rebirth).
This line by line rebuttal to everything (even con stating how he would try to argue), is just too painful for me. Voting just conduct for the forfeiture, per the automatic loss rule.
Both agree it exists. Pro argues that given that it can be explained, it ceases to be a reliable statistic. Con argues it remains a statistic, with the social interpretations of it being outside the scope of the debate.
Ultimately, pro falls short of BoP in showing how said statistic is unreliable for what it measures. Were the resolution that statistics can be misused he would win. As is, conflicting sources on it would have been the way to go.
I will note disagreement with con that this debate is just over if it exists or not; my BMI from six months ago is unreliable to present conditions, a debate on that would be stretching to be said to be about if BMI merely exists.
Con takes this easily by using pros own definition, and within context of that showing some of that range not connected to biological sex. Pro tries to defend that they’re either stupid or other names for male or female; but this doesn’t refute his own definition calling out the social range.
This one stuck with just those who have seen God’s face and lived.
Con defends by citing one passage from much later that adds an explanation. Pro accuses this of being another change away from what the earlier books stated.
Con insists pro is cherry picking, not giving enough surrounding text so that it misleads the audience. Pro states he has read it and requests con show what part of the context from those passages is missing; which con then refuses to do.
Cons explanation of what constitutes missing context (things like /I’m dead lol/ cutting out the lol) supports this outcome, as he shows context is given close to the text; not several books later in a series.
Pro commits to a tactic of spending a round on setup before getting to any point. Which gave con ample opportunity to disagree with any of it...
Pro gives a list of 6 items...
1. Con shot himself in the foot at the start of R3, with a bad attempt at poisoning the well saying pro made up the bible quotes. Pro defends that poisoning the well is off topic, leaving which is the holy day a contradiction. Con goes heavy on this, so I googled if the quote is in the bible or not, it is.
2. Con hurts himself with formatting; following "#2 “ The Permanence of Earth" through the debate should be an easy task, instead it's stuffed in the middle of other points. A thematic reply can be good, but it hardly would have been difficult to block quote him. I will say that pro is reaching a bit with this one, as the Earth having been unchanged through the ages, doesn't seem to imply an absolute forever.
3. Ok, con really really shot himself in the foot, showing Exodus to be internally inconsistent (citing the New Testament to defend the old, has quite the time gap before it was corrected).
"In Exodus 32:20 "And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.""
"But back up to verse 11 "And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face". "
4. Con does better with the chariots example, as God not using his power does not deny said power. Pro lazily extends.
5. Con echoes my thought in defense of the eye for an eye. It was pretty clearly Jesus directly saying we should update that and not be so vengeful. Pro defends by leaning on semantics; I find it questionable in strength, yet also plays against con's own argument about God's face in Exodus (always good to use a Catch-22 on someone).
...
The organization con used in R5 hurt my eyes to look at. At this point he had attempted to win by saying pro lied about the bible, and failed; right there that would be enough to make an award against him.
Con be like… https://youtu.be/WeYsTmIzjkw
Concession.
For comedy he rescinded it but it was clearly a joke.
Forfeiture.
Forfeiture.
Concession... Not that it matters, given how the debate was going.