Benjamin

This was very fun and interesting to read. In summary, CON's framework of the common good seems easier to measure and apply. The argumentation ethics seems tailor-made for anarcho-capitalist arguments and are not as rigorous and undeniable as PRO wants them to be. CON has many clear impacts of where the state improves society immensely. PRO on the other hand cannot point to a single example of where anarcho-capitalism improved society. In fact, nearly all instances of statelessness appear to have been catastrophic for the people. Even if anarcho-capitalism is philosophically justified, I didn't get nearly enough evidence to be convinced that it could do the things PRO claimed it could do. That left me with the impression that anarcho-capitalism is currently NOT something that should be advocated for. As for sources, CON had more sources that constituted actual evidence of state boons as contrasted with PRO mostly citing websites that merely explain what the words he used meant. But I don't feel like it would be fair to award Savant that point also, because Bones did really well with what he had at his disposal.

Took a few days to write this, here is the full RDF:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ncqm8-eXToaD2P1F5GRQE6NHsrV1dsflkRHsfBDx0XI/edit?usp=sharing

CON used a source, whom he claims is an actual pimp. But PRO takes the argument point. It just sounds common sense that you can be a pimp without much skill, if you have that status and luck.

Expeliarmus.

Shouldn't have accepted this debate.

The cards told me to vote CON.

How is that different from regular reproduction?

I buy that cost is outside the scope.

CON successfully defends basson durability.

PRO fails to defend bass saxophone weight and lenght.

I buy that the basson is closer to a real bat in terms of handling and effectiveness of hitting the ball. Since PRO did not successfully refute the standard of similarity being the desirable quality, I feel like the vote can only go to CON.

PRO said he would try to divinate the future, and he did try that. CON did not object to PROs method of divination.

Cat .

PRO never properly established what moral justification even is. He says Ted is guilty of gambling with the universe, but CON retorts that when talking about probability there will always be cases where a good outcome is more likely, if the current state of the world is worse than more than 50% of the purple box outcomes. PRO could have tried to present the framework that potential negative outcomes must be weighed as more morally significant, but he did not as far as I can tell. He instead argues about consent, but he never provides a moral framework to properly establish the value of consent when calculating moral justification. All PRO does is call Ted selfish and stupid, and says other people might not want him to open the box. CON counters that everyone is going to enjoy the potentially positive outcomes, and there is no reason to believe that Ted specifically is going to benefit, so you cannot really call him selfish.

"The bomb is set to go off after some time. Cutting a wire could speed it up possibly unimaginably so making what was perceived as the worse situation anybody could come in contact with, cutting one wire could make it even more worse. But cutting a wire could also rid the bomb going off altogether." This is the best argument CON could have made. If everyone is going to get blown to bits in nuclear annihalation, then Ted opening the purple box could be seen as morally justified, regardless of his inability to ask every single person for consent.

But I would probably have voted in favor of PRO if he provided a robust ethical framework and used that to argue his case, rather than simply appealing to our emotions as voters.

PRO had way more puns and references to the shows:
"
I made L take the L, now I’ll crush L2
My girl’s a 10, like the age of your wife
Your story ain’t Near me, you’re 2D and see through
Your fans call you Zero for how much you can bench
"

While CON made some bars, he had way fewer, and they were not as hard hitting or specific.

"
Your name is Light? Wait, really?
You ask for a fight, okay you are silly
A fight? Did you read my bio sweetie?
It says there I am more cool and pretty
"

So I overal enjoyed PRO's verses more as a fan of both series, and consider them more savage and deep cutting as well as being supported more with references to the shows.

FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF

CON makes arguments.

Arguments:
CON argued that society is sexualized and that this is neither harmfull nor immoral. PRO argues that it is more sexual than previous generations, which is irrelevant.

Sources:
CON used sources.

Legibility:
As usual PRO is terrible at formating and sentence structure. Reading his argument is a pain.

Conduct:
PRO tries to add a definition of "overly" that makes the debate a truism which is extremely bad faith.

CON forfeited more. PRO made some interesting arguments that never got refuted by CON.

Arguments: PRO says that reasonable and smart people believe in God. That's it, that's his argument. CON correctly points out how that isn't evidence for the belief itself being reasonable. PRO does not attempt to build a valid framework to prove that belief in God is reasonable. PRO also claims without proof that God helps one to understand one's surrounding.

Conduct:
-PRO makes new arguments in R5 when CON cannot respond to them:
---"Believing in God can provide a sense of purpose, confidence, comfort, and moral guidance, which can also promote beneficial development."
---"Also, religious beliefs often promote ethical principles and values, contributing to a moral compass that guides individuals in making decisions."
He also only provided sources in R5.

FF. PRO made a good argument that a forklift on a truck incurs less damage than the inverse.

FF from PRO and very fun argument by CON.

Bruh! Six-month voting period, really?

Concession

Reason in description

Sources: PRO hardly used sources as all, and when he did, it was not to back up any claim of his. On the other hand, CON's entire argument relied on facts, and he provided a lot of studies and articles to back it up. Therefore, CON wins this point.

Arguments: PRO's arguments were all connected to some form of personal experience or personal opinion. This showed throughout the debate, as he never provided any facts to back them up. Sure, attention problems and cheating might be issues, but he never showed to which extent or how much this matters. CON, on the other hand, argued that e-learning had some objective benefits. He showed why e-learning is a more effective form of learning, by providing evidence it was less time-consuming and taught one critical skill that would come in handy later in life, making it a more effective learning method overall.

I think PRO had access to a few harder-hitting arguments, such as social life being hindered by e-learning, or that e-learning prevents one from working in groups to develop teamwork skills --- both of these arguments could have an extensive impact since the effects of e-learning's isolation is not known to be safe. PRO did not use these stronger arguments, which meant his case was a lot weaker than it could have been. CON utilized the full force of arguments for e-learning, and I can't think of any major benefit of e-learning that wasn't brought up by him.

LOL.

Arguments: no argument presented, so default to the non-proven state of the resolution. CON also elaborated way more.

Sorces: duh

S&G: duh

Conduct: PRO waived the first argument, and CON recognised the lack of arguments from PRO by not rebutting anything. Also, CON chose to make a fun paragraph without needing to, and that's a good work ethics.

Arguments: PRO establishes a framework and builds his case based on God acting immorally whilst having the capacity to avoid doing so. CON ignores the framework and attacks the credibility of PRO as a judge of God's actions, as well as try to justify God's actions. Yet a single line of though from PRO destroyed CON's case:

"Imagine if a guy went to court in the modern-day for continually thinking wicked thoughts (or murder, it doesn't matter), and the judge sentences him, his wife, his children, and his dog, to death by drowning. We would call that judge a horribly wicked judge, dealing out cruel and unusual punishment, horribly disproportionate to the crime. "

Backed by PRO's argument that God could always do else wise, PRO successfully shows that God of the Bible is evil as from a human perspective. CON's rebuttal is that God does not need to conform to human standards, which fails to address that evil is a human term with human definition -- and PRO fulfilled his BoP while CON did not.

The sources point is very simple actually. CON obviously gets the sources points as his main thrust is to use "the context", as well as referring to Biblical verses telling us that God is just and Christian webpages explaining the Christian interpretation of certain passages. CON even went so far as to use Biblical references to Jesus as to prove that God is loving rather than evil.

The spelling, grammar, structure and style of CON made it really hard to read his arguments, meaning I have to give PRO the legibility point.

CON's general style as a constant accusation of PRO, often personally, makes his conduct horrendous. For example, this is a real quote from CON's R2: "Let me ask you something, do you deserve the death penalty? If you say no let me ask you have you lie, steal anything even if it’s small, do look at women with lusts, have you murder anyone(hopefully no) break all 10 commandments?"...

That is a personal question that one should not be allowed to ask, and CON uses this accusation of PRO being a "sinner" to devalue his logical evidence. He actually said:" Yes God of the Bible is all-powerful but why should he listen to sinners"; => CON uses the accusation of PRO doing immoral deeds to evaluate his logic -- absurd and improper conduct that shall be penalized with a vote in PRO's favour for conduct point.

Arguments: PRO's argument proves the resolution because he focuses on proving that video games help refine useful skills; CON's claim that video games affect health bad overall does not disprove the fact that some useful skills are caused by playing video games. The resolution was worded heavily in PRO's favour.

Sources: PRO plagiarized his entire argument, whilst CON used linked reliable sources, which he commented upon

Spelling and grammar: PRO claims in R2 that video games help gain reading ability. I should play more video games then because I could not understand a word of what he wrote. Wait actually, I did understand a word of what he said, but the lack of punctuation and proper syntax mean CON gets this point.

Conduct: CON gets this point because (1) CON was on point without waiving, (2) PRO plagiarized without a link, (3) CON was overbearing with PRO's "cheat" and expressed himself very diplomatically in R3

PRO's description was actually helping CON. Elsewise, FF.

PRO forfeited and did not respond to CON's argument. Conduct to CON.

PRO did make an argument, CON didn't.

PRO simply asserted that it fell upon CON to prove his case. Should have called the debate "there is evidence that death means no consciousness" and been CON.

ff.

CON made no spelling mistakes.

PRO did not make a single spelling mistake. He made no flawed argument or logical fallacy. He did not even use an unreliable source. That's impressive efforts.

CON never rebutted any argument from PRO. He never even answered PRO's questions or challenged his logic. Pretty low-tier debating I would say.

Elsewise, ff.

In comments.

PRO never refutes CON's arguments. Even still, CON proves beyond any reasonable doubt (through pure logic) that he knows something.

Extraordinarily, CON did not make even a single spelling mistake.

EXTRAORDINARILY, CON DID NOT MAKE EVEN A SINGLE SPELLING MISTAKE.

PRO's arguments are short, hard to read, lack substantial evidence and relies on the voter's subjective opinions. His arguments rely on undefined terms like "evolutionary norm" and "the church's teaching" which makes his argument as weak as our loyalty to such concepts. Basically, if you disagree with PRO you have no reason to change your mind after reading this, because PRO never added arguments that are universally valid. On the other hand, CON's arguments were longer, better sourced and more logical. On top of all of this PRO were supposed to prove to me that a women place is in the home. PRO didn't even bother to define "woman place" and what its authority should be. Why must women stay at home simply because "their place" is there? CON did a good job of refuting PRO's arguments and PRO basically conceded by stating he had nothing more to add.

The only thing PRO has going for him is "style", which felt the mall placed since he was getting recked in every single category.

Arguments: PRO offered no coherent argument, that is, an argument where at least two premises could be maintained to support the argument.

Sources: PRO's argument that white people committing more crime means they are terrorists is not only non-sequitur but his sources back up CON, not PRO.

Conduct: PRO clearly being guilty of it himself, is constantly accusing CON of not making logical arguments - a blatant lie and also an overly critical attitude.

Legibility: "excepting" = spelling mistake ||| "Technically, this COVID issue is an act of terrorism" = false language technicalities ||| "gets him nowhere fast" = wrong
(PS: if this point feels nit-picky, it's because I am a white domestic terrorist)

CON proves that in the case of unarmed people, lethal force is not to be used. However, PRO's point that in some situations lethal force is necessary also stands. PRO's argument for a riot is futile, as non-lethal ways of using force can still be implemented. However, the resolution doesn't state "lethal force against riots", but "lethal force". Thus, in some situations, lethal force might be needed. However, PRO did not mention any situation other than a riot, so the argument point to CON.

Sources point to PRO, because his sources directly negated the "peacefully protest" argument from CON, by showing the direct damage.

PRO made many hard arguments, such as " ".
However, CON made fewer points, but explained them more grammatically correct and had evidence and expert sources backing him up.

I think both had wonderful conduct.

Arguments: "no need" is a valid argument, it simply lacked evidence. However, PRO did not refute it, so the baseless assertion counts as a fact.

Conduct: CON did not forfeit.

PRO had a full forfeit. CON made an argument and used sources.

I am not saying that CON did make any grammar mistakes, just that the way one writes in a debate is not 100% perfect grammar even in an ideal situation.
For example: "It would also be a fallacy to conclude that because it is intuitive or comfortable that is untrue." lacking "it" due to debate-rhetoric, not any mistake.

PRO did not post an argument, and thus could not make any grammar mistakes. LOL.

While CON managed to cast serious doubt on the properties of God, the Thomistic argument was simply utilized in a way more flexible way than CON could deny. CON's entire argument was based on science, more specifically strict naturalism. These specific conditions under which the resolution might be negated are vastly inferior to the grand philosophical evidence by PRO. With regards to arguments, I have studied them and written an analysis of them. But the important part to remember is that the definition of God is flexible enough to survive the scientific critique from CON. While other first causes might exist, CON failed to debunk the existence of such a thing, and could not completely disprove that God is one of the very few valid explanations for motion in the universe. Therefore, motion in the universe points towards God. PRO doesn't need overwhelming evidence to affirm the resolution, he only needs it to point towards God.

Conduct: PRO forfeited

Arguments: https://docs.google.com/document/d/10EevM5KyL9S0m_uWuu55qXkPeyKr64YLNFP--QDy0Ac/edit?usp=sharing

Concession.

PRO uses his own perception of "God" to disprove the existence of the Christian God. He is unsuccessful because CON shows why PROs' arguments are subjective. If CON can prove that one way of looking at the Christian God justifies the existence of evil, then PRO is defeated. CON does exactly that, by showing why theology has already answered those questions. The real problem is whether or not Undefeatable is willing to ACCEPT that view of God, which is subjective. PRO commits the fallacy of applying subjective arguments against an objective God - thus, there is no way to vote but to accept that Christianity has answered the questions for centuries.

Superb debate - never read anything better on this topic. Both sides made excellent arguments, used reliable sources, and did not use bad conduct.

Yes, my personal bias points to CON being the victor, and I feel like CON's arguments were more convincing overall. However, the expanded resolution in the description was not decisively proven incorrect by CON - since he never challenged the syllogism of PRO. On the contrary, PRO managed to defend his position, although not prove it to be better than PRO's FLO. Since there was no problem with the arguments or style they used, I will need to grant the vote based on the position as a whole, not the individual arguments. In the end, it came down to PRO's grand strategy being more efficient than CON's superior tactics.

IN CONCLUSION, CON WON THE BATTLES BUT PRO WON THE WAR.

Here is the whole RDF:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xZIPOyfYgWlECs2pz5xwhu6ktk-1qnGud-TTAeie2oY/edit

GG for pro. No sources, arguments, no knowledge of the subject, and not a single grammatically correct sentence.

Concession.
But here is the RDF:

https://www.google.com/search?q=budgies&newwindow=1&rlz=1C1GCEB_enNO937NO937&sxsrf=ALeKk03PmRmbMEQQKMsi4s-j8Aj62Ppp_Q:1613030678043&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwik8c3Er-HuAhXwkosKHeZUA9oQ_AUoAXoECBAQAw&biw=1280&bih=610

Arguments:
Pro made some valid arguments such as video games being more fun. However, con made more convincing arguments. His point that video games aren't necessary - alone is enough to win him the debate. Pro could maybe win a debate named "teachers should use more video games". Pros preemptive rebuttals were effective, but later his entire argument fell apart when Con pointed out that video games are easily exploited or make students focus on the objective rather than the process.

Sources:
Pro's sources were better at supporting his argument and he successfully defended them and used them effectively to support his argument. For example, con tried to invalidate the DNA experiment - but Cons source declares it to be "a video game", effectively making Cons accusation a subjective argument, based on your opinion about what a video game is. Con rebutted by calling it "appeal to authority" - which is exactly what the source point is meant to be granted upon.

Congratulations both of you - this debate is the most interesting I have ever read, and the short length made it an enjoyable and easy experience.

Forfeit = forfeit = forfeit = 3F = FF - 1f = all points to CON

Sources:
It's obvious. The science by Pro was overwhelming in both numbers and quality. Quantum mechanics is not even comparable to other research fields with regards to "time it has existed as a field" or not even how much it is understood or the implications explained. His attempt at the end was too late, Pro got no time to analyze it. Pro showed an overwhelming and undefeateable amout of evidence and explained the exact sciences which proved his point.

Arguments:
Pro successfully proved how the earth is older than 10.000 years - even humans lived 10.000 years ago.

Con countered by undermining time as a concept. He said that time objectively does not exist - yet I quote him:

"Murder is a social construct, and time isn't. Using human methods of operation to solve human issues such as murder cases work for all of them."

So if time does not exist - but is a human concept, why does he not apply that logic to "murder"? Pro rightfully addresses this inconsistency.

Con admits that social constructs work to solve human problems. But since time is a social construct, as is "beyond doubt".

It does not get any less suspicious when he ignores the COUNTLESS definitions of time already know to human beings. His argument was that we could only experience the present - and that the past does not exist. I am in my full right to critique Con's argument. I am not finding new information, but his point makes no sense. If humans experience time then time exists - this is easy logic.

Con critiqued Pro:
"You didn't and adding it now is a moving the goalpost fallacy."

Yet he himself moved the goalpost - by changing the resolution to "time exists" instead of "the earth is less than 10.000 years"

I cannot see how Con would win. Even his argument that time does not exist does not prove that the earth is "0" years old

Conclusion:

Since Con's entire argument is based on a new, controversial field of science - Pro clearly had the advantage. I give the source and argument points to Pro.

I give the conduct point to Con, just because of the creative Idea and to not be too conclusive - he fought well.

First of all, they were discussing ETHICS, not MORALITY. Ethics is the set of principles on which a society bases their actions. Morality on the other hand is how individuals and groups actually act. A morally good action is one that acts according to the ethical principles. In the context of this debate, the two words were uses interchangeably.

THE THEORIES:
Ethics need to propose two things: A. principles of how to act and B. reason, motivation or authority backing up the principles.

Pro arguably nailed point B, by actually providing a universal set of principles on which all humans should be able to agree. He successfully proved that ethics is about DUTY - a point which is shared by the Judeo Christian values on which human rights and western morality is based upon. When it comes to point A, con arguably put up a more flexible set of principles - effectively making it possible for individuals to make completely different decisions and still be called morally good. However as Pro pointed out that ethical systems are to create coherence and an objective standard rather than being a mathematical equation. Con failed to explain in a sufficient manner what a "greater good" is as compared to a lesser good. Thus undermining his argument. Cons argument that Kantian ethics make impossible individual variation was successfully rebutted by Pro - when he said that there is a difference between an action and a moral action. However Pro failed to explain what the difference what. The arguments from con definitely felt more convincing at the time I read them, but I thought about it and the ultimate victor with regards to arguments was Pro. Well done both of you.