Best.Korea

I said I will vote, so here it goes. I am leaving everything as a tie.

My comment on this debate is:
A debate about objective morality shouldnt turn into a debate about dolphins attacking sharks, chess rules, math, laws, obedience...
I think we can all agree that none of those are examples of objective morality as defined in the description.

By the Con's choice to forfeit the entire debate.

While I do think that Pro had much superior arguments, sadly Pro missed 50% of debate. Thats a loss.

By the choice of one side to forfeit the entire debate, the other side who didnt forfeit at all becomes the winner.

Pro brings up plenty of arguments:
1) Condemned by international community, 2) Ukraine became independent in 1991, 3) Russia agreed to respect Ukraine's independence if Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons, 4) Ukraine is more democratic and free than Russia, 5) Putin's political opponents continue to die under mysterious circumstances, 6) Russian violation of human rights, 7) Fighting a bloody war so that Ukranian citizens have less freedom is unjustified, 8) Russia violated the international law, 9) Russia committed war crimes, 10) Russia lied about self defense, 11) Ukraine posing no military threat to Russia, 12) Russia avoided diplomatic solutions and peace, 13) banned criticism of war, 14) unjustified conscription, 15) cost to Russian citizens, 16) destabilization of international peace, 17) nuclear threats, 18) refugee crisis cost, 19) People disagree about what proper justification is,
20) Do these provocations justify the specific kind of invasion that Russia has been carrying out? No.
21) We are not discussing other countries, 22) president Yanukovych only has authority to make claims about what he will do, 23) Russia does not have the authority to say Ukraine cannot make deals, 24) Referendum in Crimea was rigged, 25) Russia violated the Minsk agreements much more, 26) the agreements were unfair to Ukraine, 27) none of the things Con listed show that Ukraine poses any military threat to Russia, 28) Russia could admit that Donbas belongs to Ukraine like they admitted twice already, 29) killing innocent civilians, full-scale invasion do not solve any of the problems between Russia and Ukraine, 30) consequences of an invasion, 31) Russia has consistently lied about whether they would invade and about what parts of Ukraine belong to them, 32) NATO is a defensive alliance, 33) Russia is giving other countries a reason to fear military conflict.

Pro's arguments are diminished.
1) Subjectivity attached to justified, 2) Continuosly doing what someone doesnt like. That is provocation. 3) Ukraine would not be a cooperative neighbour because of NATO influence, 4) Ukraine were invited to join NATO, 5) NATO's expansion was a provocation to Russia, 6) Pro's claim Russia is a repressive regime, they cannot be provoked. Appeal to emotions. 7) Sovereignty in on itself, does not eliminate or negate justification for military actions, 8) setting a standard that a country must have its own borders in complete order, to some external standard, before they can claim a justification for military force is nonsensical, 9) Clearly from Russian perspective, there was a justification, 10) Pro seems to believe that the expansion of NATO, despite assurances, is not a provocation, and that NATO is just a defensive alliance. Tell that to the people of Serbia, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and Iraq. Hardly a defense only organization, 11) Pro-Russian separatists in Donbas protested. The Ukrainian government used a military response, 12) Ukraine refused to honor the Minsk accords, 13) Russia's military action protects Russian speakers, 14) Both Russia and Ukraine have troops that are not playing by the rules.

"Ukraine became independent in 1991, Russia agreed to respect Ukraine's independence if Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons" is diminished. "Ukraine were invited to join NATO." "Ukraine would not be a cooperative neighbour because of NATO influence". "NATO's expansion was a provocation to Russia".

"NATO is a defensive alliance" is diminished. "Tell that to the people of Serbia, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and Iraq". "NATO's expansion was a provocation to Russia".

"Fighting a bloody war so that Ukranian citizens have less freedom is unjustified" and "Russia committed war crimes" are diminished arguments.
"No UN accusations of genocide have been levied".
"Pro-Russian separatists in Donbas protested. The Ukrainian government used a military response."
"Simmons was placed on the notorious Myrotvorets kill list which has seen several of its targets assasinated by Ukrainian death squads".

"killing innocent civilians, full-scale invasion do not solve any of the problems between Russia and Ukraine" is diminished.
"Pro-Russian separatists in Donbas protested. The Ukrainian government used a military response.", "Subjectivity attached to justified", "setting a standard that a country must have its own borders in complete order, to some external standard, before they can claim a justification for military force is nonsensical", "Governments have historically used ethnic protection elements as justification for military intervention.", "Russia's military action protects Russian speakers", and "NATO's expansion was a provocation to Russia"
prove the topic "THBT: Russia's invasion of Ukraine beginning in 2022 was unjustified" in Con's favor. Arguments go to Con.

Plenty of sources used by both sides. Sources are tie.

Legibility was solid on both sides. Legibility is a tie.

Conduct was good. Conduct is tie.

Con's arguments:
1) different feeling of speaking to a robot,
2) the personal touch,
3) we may lose out on valuable personal interactions,
4) a robot leads a mass in pollution,
5) increasing temperatures causing global warming,
6) disregarding the fact of exercise,
7) unsustainable exploitation of natural resources
8) dependency on rare metals for production of electronic equipment further deepens
9) new challenges for recycling and waste management.

Pro's arguments:
1) deaths could've been avoided if we simply had robots carry out difficult jobs,
2) we humans will find a way to minimise pollution, just like how we've seen in the past with electric cars emitting less greenhouse gases then engine cars.
3) "exploitation of natural resources" and usage of "rare metals", just like with pollution we will surely find a way to optimise recycling and invent new "waste management" technologies which can be further utilized to save so much more resources other than just metal used for robots/electronics.

I am leaving arguments as a tie. This is because there is no way for me to compare the results of robots and pollution, when no numbers were given by either side.

Sources werent used. Tie.

Legibility was good on both sides. Easy to read. Tie.

Conduct was fine on both sides. Tie.

Pro starts by saying that fetus is a human being, that human life begins at fertilization and that human zygote is most certainly a human being.

Pro gives the definition of an abortion and an in-clinic abortion. Pro concludes that abortion is homicide.

Con brings up arguments "1) animal abortions, 2) AI abortions, 3) metal beam abortions, 4) problem of Inheritance, 5) Accidental abortion 6) Abortion not caused by humans, 7) homicide but not abortion, 8) abortion when the fetus survives, 9) Dead fetus not killed by abortion, 10) Fetus being killed by acid 11) Tree trunk abortion".

These arguments are proven incorrect by definitions given by Pro:
"fetus is a human being"
"Merriam-Webster defines Abortion as.:
The termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus."
"An in-clinic abortion is a minor medical procedure to end a pregnancy. The most common type is vacuum aspiration. The doctor puts a tube in the uterus."

Con says "Pro ignores every single fetus that isn't a part of the Homo Sapien species".

Pro's definitions are proven true when Pro says: "But it should be considered that when people discuss abortion in the general sense, this includes majority of scientific conversations, political discourse, or the discussion of ethics, it only refers to females of the human population.",
"Extend that in all instances of a human professional performing an abortion on a human mother with a living fetus is an act of homicide."

Con defends his AI argument: "Seeing the growth of what AI is, an allowance to learn what in-clinic abortion is and how it can be done is enough for them to be able to perform it."

Pro did refute the AI argument before: "Since it was man who designed artificial intelligence with the specific command of terminating a human fetus, then it's as good as a human holding a gun to someone and pulling the trigger. Yes technically, it was the gun and the bullet that did the killing, not the person. But as the specific command is automated for a purpose, then it stands to reason that this act was premeditated. And not just for one person, but multiple people. So whoever invented this murder machine is not only committing homicide, but genocide. And even if they did not commit the homicide themselves, they are still an accomplice and thereby an accessory.".

Since Pro proved his definitions to be true, the resolution is proved in Pro's favor. Argument points are given to Pro.

Both Pro and Con used sources. Sources are tie.

Legibility was similar. Legibility is tie.

Conduct was good on both sides. Conduct is a tie.

Forfeit 50% of the debate = loss

Con needed to explain where the contradiction is in verses about Sabath. "I am not getting what the contradiction is".
The verses about "Earth" being contradictive is not true. There will always be something called Earth.
The verses about seeing God are not contradictions. "So no man has seen God . That is until the exception by the mercy of God.".
The verses about iniquity are not contradictions. "Many times when these things aren't read as written allowing the mind to presuppose, your interpretation creates the contradictions in your understanding."

Con claimed God was powerless, which was proven false. "If God is omnipotent, why was he powerless against men with iron chariots?" "In short, verse 19 in the first chapter book of Judges didn't say He was."
"We don't see the words "GOD WAS POWERLESS " in that verse. You have to add those words to read that which is called reading into the text. This is how you arrive at your phony contradictions ."

Con made a claim about "Honor thy father and thy mother" being a contradiction. Proven false. "I can strongly dislike you while keeping respect for you.".
"I'm going to show what I believe of the "hate" you're thinking about because apparently you think"hate" and honor are opposites. No, love and hate are opposites. That's why I asked which words of these verses are contradicting to you."

Pro proved that Con was unable to find contradiction in the scriptures. Therefore, Pro wins the arguments.

Pro and Con both used Bible as a source. Therefore, sources are tied.

Both Pro and Con had arguments that were easy to read. Tie in legibility.

Conduct was good in both Pro and Con.

Forfeit. The Con's case was strong. The example of unfair distribution and what happens when limited resources are left to be managed by greed proved the topic in Con's favor.

Topic: "Is abortion murder from the point of conception?"

Pro starts arguing that human life begins at conception, and that abortion starts being murder from that point.
Con counters this by explaining that abortion doesnt start being murder from that point, because human life doesnt start at conception. It starts before conception, so abortion starts being murder before conception.
Pro tries to counter this by saying sperm isnt human because dismembered limb isnt human.
Con counters by saying "We run into a paradoxical problem when arguing that it shouldn't be called murder before the stage of conception.
Due to this paradoxical problem, we have to draw the line where there's no conflict.
This is why we have this controversy over abortion and pro life. On the one hand , the argument is not to perform an abortion on what's called a cluster of cells. On the other side, perform one on a cluster of cells as the stage hasn't been reached to look at the cells any different."
Con continues:
"That's why the weight , the WEIGHT of murder still weighs the same. If I have a house, the house is valuable put together just as the individual parts used to put it together were as separated."
Pro does not counter this in any way, and offers no response.
Con concludes in the final round that we dont survive if contraception is used.
The topic is proved in Con's favor. It is not true that abortion is murder from the point of conception, since abortion is murder before the point of conception.

The crucial contention in the debate is one which lies far from the topical stipulations. We can all agree that, in the intended debate regarding the moral aspects of animals, Novice_II clearly wins - however, this was not how the contest panned out. Oromagi opts to instead critique the fundamentals of the instigator's case, by exposing that the definition results in a tautological impossibility. It’s a risky strategy - let’s see if it pays off.

R1. PRO

Nothing which will be substantive in the overall decision is said here because Oromagi will undermine the entire argument. Thus, I need not make any comment.

R1. CON

Nothing much needs to be said here either - CON establishes the beginning of their Kritik - that the term “another” implies “in addition”, which further implies that according to the provided definitions, slavery is that which must include at least two agents. Thus, the rest of the instigators case is null, for they apply to animals as opposed to “another” human being.

R2. PRO

PRO responds compellingly here (personally, I had thought the debate was over already and that CON had won). They argue that “person” refers to “that who has personhood” and further compliments this by showing examples, where in the traditional definition of “person” is insufficient (ie, the abortion debate is one where “person” is in contention, there was once a time when the status of African’s or Jew’s were questioned etc).

R2. CON

CON replies by arguing that PRO’s definitions fall prey to the stipulative fallacy, wherein the ambiguous defining of a term is done so in order to bolster one’s own argument. They also claim that PRO does not use the most common of definitions. I don’t buy this - if it were the case that we can only use surface level definitions, debates regarding abortion and the rights of minorities could never be accelerated, as PRO observes in both rounds.

R3. PRO

Much of the same here, though PRO adds that CON’s reliance on “common sense” defines an argument from incredulity. I buy this - once upon a time, common sense determined the subjugation of African Americans, a point which PRO made in the prior round and also supplements when stipulating “ When discussing ethical issues regarding how we ought to treat entities, we discuss whether or not these entities are persons”

R3. CON

CON refutes the charges of an appeal to incredulity by arguing that the definitions are not “common place”, but this is exactly what PRO had charged as being an appeal to incredulity - the sentiment that “we ought use the common place definition” is exactly what PRO described as being incredulous. Furthermore, critiquing the notion that the "personhood" doctrine is uncommon isn't actually an engagement with the argument, merely a stipulation that it isn't very common (might I add as an example that it was once uncommon to hold that African Americans had rights). CON could have very easily argued that animals do not qualify for moral calculation, however, they did not.

-

Overview of arguments
CON's entire argument is that PRO does not conform to most dictionaries. In a clearly philosophical debate, it is clear you must do more than this (e.g. arguing abortion is wrong because it is illegal is akin to this level of argumentation). PRO correctly argues that, adopting the narrow view of CON's case, we would never have been able to further the rights of Africans and Jews, or have any dialectic in the abortion debate. CON could have won the debate if they had invested more into the moral aspect, as they did in round two, but it must be admitted that the majority of their case is semantics, and as the semantics was nullified by PRO's personhood doctrine, the argument is neutralised and the rest of PRO's arguments go untouched. Like Whiteflames said, it is clear that in a debate like this, crucial terms like "person" are up for grabs (especially in a distinctly morally grounded debate) , and I ultimately favoured the engagement of the personhood definition when compared to the regurgitation of dictionaries.

Conduct
I don’t appreciate that CON hinges their entire argument on semantical grounds - a kritik here and there as a supplementary riddle for the opponent to address is fine, but when you base your entire case on semantics, it’s quite annoying. Nonetheless, my personal dissatisfaction does not constitute enough of a justification to deduct a conduct point.

Reasons fully explained in comments.