Total votes: 1,434
"Bump" for the win!
First off, I did not even know we could put formatting into the description; so well done on teaching me something!
On a related note, the a good description to model future debates on is at:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/4222
So key definitions laid out, along with one or two metrics for measurement (which to me doesn't mean they're the only ones, but it gives a baseline to decrease arbitrariness).
...
Ok style criticism:
Please recycle the headings throughout the debate. It makes it so much easier to follow, and saves a ton of characters.
Argument 1; Homosexuality is Natural
While not advancing his own case, con wins this hands down by pointing out that natural or unnatural is irrelevant to good or bad. This one seems to be pro falling into the tactic of trying to pre-refute arguments an opponent is likely to make but has not made. When it works it can be beautiful, but other times it's a strawman; generally I'd advise against trying those in R1 (and/or keep it minimal).
Not sure why con thought pro's definition limits homosexuals to humans, and sure pro comes back with how it applies in the animal kingdom; but again, con is right that natural doesn't matter.
Argument 2; Homosexuality is not a disorder
This is more akin to what arg1 meant to be. A reminder of a common abuse hurled at anyone who isn't asexual (in addition to anyone who is asexual).
I get con's complaint over the word "psychopathology," the sentence indeed did not come together when initially put forward.
Con pivots here with standards for how it could be classified as a disorder (even if such would not be recognized as one by the American Psychological Association).
Argument 3; violence
Con argues that gays are more prone to violence. This is the first really important claim in the debate, so really should have gotten a heading (there were other claims next to it, but this is the big one!).
Pro counters that the claim is unwarranted, and mentions non-homosexuals abusing them as the real wrong.
Con argues that having the disorder homosexuality causes others to inflict harms upon them, and they are therefore wrong for being harmed... He reminds us that disorder is defined as "something that disrupts the function of an individual"
Pro responds with something about secret gays... Expected more of a slam dunk here... Oh gets fun with a counter about curing Korean for how odd talking about removing identity from people really is.
Argument 4; successful reproduction
Con throwing this one out there caught my attention, but seems like an ok metric, to which pro would need to outweigh with positive ones.
However, pro uses IVF to show that they do a have children.
This really should have been followed with some comparison of the average quality of parents among both groups.
Argument 5; diseases
Con points out increased disease rates,
Pro counters with a study about straight men who have sex with men being more likely to get sick than actual gay people (I was in the military too long; I'm still laughing about this, and I feel bad for laughing!)
Con counters that half of gay men are positive for STDs (this would have been strengthened with the comparative rate for straight people).
Pro comes back with disease rates from Planned Parenthood (actually this is part of why I'm not giving sources, as I am not seeing the table within that link), showing heteros having higher STD rates than some gays (the letters should have been spelled out a bit).
...
Things basically just repeat themselves a bit from there.
Were the debate to have the "definitely" qualifier, I'd vote against pro; as is, it seems far more likely than not that homosexuality is not wrong. I'm left with the impression that non-homosexuals have a problem of committing violence, which makes the ones not committing said violence a decrease in the amount of wrongness; further the STD rates favored the gays (I actually don't believe this based on my own research, but no counter evidence was used for me to align with).
That said, it was close. Pro fell solidly flat on their main two contentions, and only attained the high ground within the framework con put forward. I think I'd still be putting this down as a tie (maybe giving pro conduct for con missing two rounds), if not for the whole remove Korean from people; that one gives me food for thought about the greater implications of trying to make people homogeneous (pun intended!).
Forfeiting
Foregone Conclusion. This debate being set for a single round, means pro cannot defend their case against con's rebuttals.
Pro's case is that they're good, they lead to such things as students taking school more seriously.
Con's case is that they do not improve academic performance, and also that the uniforms may violate some religious taboos (FYI, uniform rules are commonly modified for such specialty cases).
Con's case would have been better with an inclusion of the cost; but he still cast sufficient doubt against the benefits meriting it being mandatory.
Less forfiture.
Forfeiture, and a nice counter point about the existence of mental I’ll was as another contributor
Forfeiture and plagiarism
Forfeiture
Concession
Most wholesome debate ever!
Forfeiture
Forfeiture.
Forfeiture.
Forfeiture.
Con treated this as a truism, rather than challenging pro on selected good options he banked on audience pre-determining him to be the winner due the reputation.
Pro meanwhile gave samples from main fast food chains which are nutritionally healthy (at which point, they could literally be pouring lard down someone elses throat, the one person eating well is not merely possible but likely to exist).
Conduct for forfeiture.
Forfeiture.
Pro missed half the debate, leaving everything dropped.
Forfeiture.
Forfeiture.
Comedy debate in which only pro made jokes.
See:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/4106/comments/50486
AND
https://www.debateart.com/debates/4106/comments/50462
Revoting for new evidence:
Plagiarism via ChatGPT.
Giving pro legibility since his reformatting was really good, and I wish to encourage more of it (not that it would normally take the point); but con takes everything else due to the cheating (con also cheated a bit with a final round blitzkrieg, but that's of much smaller impact).
...
Original vote:
This could more easily go against con than for him, as his only posting was in the final round.
That said, I'll leave it tied as a duel FF. Please redo this one guys. You could literally copy/paste the single round worth of content to serve as the new R1.
If doing that, I suggest having this one deleted.
Forfeiture
Forfeiture
At the end of the day, I would leave arguments tied, and give sources to con.
The videos overpowered it. I have a sense that Thor is a real fighter (including that he loses an eye in a fight). The most sense I had of Hellbat, was a guess that he's basically The Destroyer suit which we saw Thor beat. Even the abilities list of each were challenged, leaving me with little idea on the power level comparison.
I will say that I reject the Injustice evidence. I don't know the lore for that game, but I know in it Robin and Grey Hulk trade punches making them of comparable strenth, and they're likewise each a match for The Flash at speed. And of course Batman without that suit is just as capable against Darkseid (kinda the nature of the game). Sadly, this was the best hyping of Hellbat in this debate.
Pro: When making an argument about how strong Hellbat is, you're doing too many leaps into the transitive property. You should argue something like Darkseid's face is made of the material of nutron stars (I'm guessing), and here's an image of Hellbat cutting his head in half. Whereas you kept going on about how amazing Superman is, as if that's supposed to tell me if Darkseid cuts himself shaving or not.
Con: A little more focus on the tactics you believe Thor would use would have gone a long way. You didn't even challenge pro when he claimed that Batman's opening move is to murder whomever he's fighting.
Lifeforce: This was a mistake for pro to correct, since it initially sounded like Batman would have to watch his diet, not that he could die. At the same time, con did not leverage this.
The Final Batsuit: So Bruce wears the Batsuit to become Batman, and Batman wears Hellbat, and Hellbat wears The Final Batsuit... what or who is The Final Batsuit? I honestly got Powe Ranger vibes from this; is it a Zorg? Does Bruce morph into the Bat Ranger? ... It's just too far outside the scope, without telling the audience anything.
Immortality: Con really should have pushed this after pro brought it up.
Con shows that biblically Darkness predates everything. Pro questions if darkness really exists; which is a very weird kritik against his own resolution being able to be affirmed. Whereas pro's case that God created the darkness in the time of Isiah, was called into question for figurative wording he used around the same passages and more verifiable parts of it not being affirmed.
Strangely, con is also able to win on water. His forklift example to show that moving things is distinct from creating them, leaves us with just statements about how God moved water without necessarily having first created it.
Conduct I'll call a wash (no pun intended). Pro dropped the final two rounds, but con broke the intended debate structure.
Agreed tie until they can finish later.
Forfeiture
At its core pro is arguing that white privilege in its current form is mischaracterized, not resulting in "inequality and injustice" as the usual definition implies. It's something of a K to his own topic but I'll allow it. Con suffers a bit of scope creep and related confusion with closely connected matters of white supremacy.
Con yielded a lot of ground in R1 and R2, but came back in R3 to secure his victory.
In the end I'm left with the impression that the problem exists even if frequently overstated, and some factors such as increased educational access are beginning to mitigate it.
...
Pro argues it exists, but is not problematic. He supports this with slavery ending in 1865, in 1870 blacks began being elected into congress, and in 1964 a law was passed to give black people the same rights as white people "and everyone was treated equally as human beings, with the same rights and consequences."
Con argues that in present day "ignorance and indifference" associated with white privilege cause harms.
1. The Law (pro)
Pro successfully argues that the law as written is not inherently racist.
2. Police Brutality
Con uses the example of white police targeting a black teacher and being violent against her on the basis of how violent they believed her skin color to make her.
Pro challenges for a lack of statistically significant evidence (not sure the point of half defending the officer in question here; even while agreeing he was needlessly cruel).
Con brings up a few more examples, but misses pro's point and theme which extends throughout.
3. Racial Sentencing
Con argues black people are given decades when accused of rape, whereas white people are given only months for the same crime. This is particularly effective due to pro's line "the same rights and consequences." Con also mentions drugs, but without a comparison to how whites are sentenced it falls a little flat. Further, there is a difference in sentencing based on race (that source could have been much better utilized, a single line from it doesn't get across half what the graphs showed).
Pro defends that Turner is an isolated case, not indicative of a pattern; and further white people have also been wrongly accused of crimes. He defends that the rate of executions are solely in proportion to rate of capital crime occurrence.
Con argues that sentencing differences are "Institutionalized Discrimination." Further, that the differing crime rates are due to "Socio-economic disadvantages."
Pro asserts that it is impossible for the law to do this...
4. Stereotypes
Con argues that white people are more likely to commit violent crimes, but black people suffer centuries of profiling for the few of them which do likewise.
Pro challenges the ratios.,
Con backs down, and blames income inequality.
Pro leverages this with information on the education system which all other things being equal would result in African Americans doing better than White Americans.
Con says this is self defeating (I actually see why, due to the imbalance proving enough other things are not equal to create the situations already discussed; but con would have been well to talk a little more about this).
5. Systemic Racism vs Individual Racism
Con's weakest point. It feels like an assertion that racism is worse based on the color of the racist.
Pro defends and argues for dismissal due to lack of relevance.
https://info.debateart.com/kritik-guide#semantic-aka-lawyering
Pro had a case that the shapes seem well suited for one of many potential uses of them, but con kritiked that random shape does not imply it's a design at all; and further under an alternative context of sex by design, sex is rarely intended to result in reproduction.
If pro merely wished to argue that sex between a man and a woman can sometimes result in pregnancy, that is the debate resolution he should have specified.
Forfeiture.
Con also had a run kritik that cryogenics could invalidate any set maximum.
Pro makes a decent case against the draft, focused on the harm to boys, the harm to Vietnam, and that the lack of volunteer soldiers would be proof the country has failed so should not be able to wage war.
Con refutes that pro's points imply /should/ but not /must/, and further that a moral obligation to be rid of it would be faster attained by other means (remove the selective service, so that the draft cannot occur); this further shows the availability of an alternative option denying the /must/.
...
A few good lessons to be learned, and hopefully there will be a rematch with a better written resolution and more rounds.
The overwhelming strength of pro being right, means I will vote for him regardless of his performance...
/satire
Forfeiture.
Pro brings up the imago dei, con challenges it because it’s not worded the exact way he would like; pro extends.
Pro brings up the imago dei, con challenges it because other parts of the Bible says God is a spirit; pro reminds us that his job is not to prove the Bible is without contradiction.
Pro brings up the imago dei, and con never challenges it.
Forfeiture
Forfeiture
Forfeiture
Forfeiture
Forfeiture.
Concession.
Forfeiture
Critical forfeiture. By missing R2, all points from con were wholly dropped.
Forfeiture.
Forfeiture.