I understand the confusion now with my RFD. I had a grammatical typo and it was a short typed RFD, which isn't fair to y'all as debaters, and I'm sorry. I was saying don't drop the win condition Con creates in the second round and not answer it in the third, their win condition being the fictional appreciation. You never answer it directly and just extend your second round speech as an answer without telling a judge why it is an answer. I hope that clarifies more, and if it doesn't, then we can discuss it after the voting period to not violate any rules.
Also, I hope you have more than your baseless accusation and the fact I voted against you as the reason that I'm not eligible to vote, because the system auto allows people to vote when they meet the requirements.
RFD
I vote Con because I don't believe that Pro meets their BOP. Going off the third round resolution, Con says the BOP is for Pro to give a new theory. Pro says it's not and says look at the description, which has no explicit BOP. Con then says the BOP is for Pro to show the missing mechanism, and they simply don't. I buy that there is evidence the microbes evolve quickly and beneficially, I buy the algae has evolved to multicellular, and I buy that the lizards can't switch back and forth because they're evolving. (This list without context sounds like an Alex Jones rant) This fulfills that evolution can happen fast enough, to cause microbes to be humans.
Notes
Pro
Don't switch the debate in the middle, make the resolution more clear. On top of this, if you want to refer to the description to answer claims on what the BOP is, then put an explicit BOP in the description. You spend a lot of time just not engaging with Con's sources and argumentation. For example, you make a baseless claim about one of his sources, he cites why that's wrong from the source, you extend it and add another one in the next speech. Algae and lizard egg/live birth was full of this. Use direct sources to clash, so Con can't just extend their source as an answer.
Con
I don't understand why you dropped the BOP that Pro has to have an alternate theory. There was a lot of argumentation on why it was a good BOP and Pro didn't answer it, meaning it was an instant win for you. Also, you should have called Pro out on the resolution shift as a reason to vote Con.
If y'all have any questions, you can PM me or @ me in the comments.
RFD
I vote con because without BOP (Burden Of Proof) analysis, BOP falls on Pro to prove the resolution true. This means that we look at his singular argument about how to handle terrorists and ask if it proves the resolution true. Con shows that terrorists aren't handled by the police and Pro doesn't answer this, making it a good Con argument.
Notes
Pro
Don't put all your eggs in one basket and rely the entire debate on one argument. Also, add sources hyperlinked into the debate.
Con
Don't forget to extend your arguments you made in the first round. Pro didn't answer them, but you still need to point out that they dropped them or you end up dropping them to.
RFD
I vote pro because I buy that AI saves lives. I don't feel comfortable voting on a new argument in the last speech that con made, but it's outweighed anyways. Lastly, the idea that we can't beat AI brought up by Con is answered by Pro by him saying that it's supposed to allow us to free ourselves from menial tasks.
Notes
Pro
Don't drop your point. That means that when you bring up an idea (like AI can save lives), if your opponent doesn't answer it, say they dropped it and you extend it. Also, try to use sources.
Con
Make sure you answer the points made by Pro. Try to not make new arguments in the last speech, it's super abusive because Pro doesn't get a chance to answer it, meaning some judges (myself included) won't vote on it. Lastly, use sources.
I read the whole debate, and I'm sorry you feel the need to report my vote without asking me first. The problem is this is directly countered because you can appreciate something that isn't real, people appreciating fictional depictions proves this. This means that Con can appreciate the fictional scenario. Is there a more specific argument you think I'm not weighing that preempted the fictional point, since you dropped it going forward?
RFD
I first see that BOP is on Con, so the question is do they prove that "Con fails to appreciate that Pro is in love with him/her/them." I believe Con appreciates the fictional scenario that would lead to Pro being in love with Con, especially since there's no argumentation against it.
Notes
Pro
Don't drop there win condition in the second round. That will do you in any debate where the other debater is good enough to say you dropped the biggest piece of offense.
Con
Don't be afraid to use yourself as a piece. Pro says that they don't love you, but say that you PERCEIVE him to love you, for example. When you are a piece of the resolution, that means you can affect it.
RFD
Sources
Con doesn't have sources, very easy choice for this section.
Argumentation
There's a couple of really easy places for me to vote. With no BOP analysis done, I default that BOP falls on pro. Pro makes the mistake of dropping some of his most powerful arguments (gaslighting, got me YET, etc.) but I still believe they fulfill their burden for a couple of reasons. Firstly, his last will and testament is for me to vote for him. This is a request that I've never given a reason to ignore, so even if you got him after that speech, I still vote for his last will and testament. Even if he wasn't gotten, I vote that, based on his ESP with 68 ping, this is proof that he will die to them in the future as they are working to get him. Secondly, his argumentation that the chips are technically improbable is dropped, meaning that there is no chip, you haven't gotten him, your still working towards getting him. Third, the argument that this is all in the past since you have the last speech, I somewhat protect against new arguments in the last speech, so weighing that possibility against Pro's ESP doesn't outweigh.
Notes
Pro
You drop a lot of really good arguments like gaslighting and the YET argument. Don't drop things that are ignored win conditions. Also, be careful for breaking your own rules, you identify Con as them which could be an immediate loss if they hammered that out.
Con
Don't put all your eggs in one basket. This one argument about it being in the past because it's the last speech, this is new and only one thing. This is very risky and it didn't pay off. Make sure to keep your other time arguments up, microchip, etc. Also, when Pro breaks their own rule (calls you them despite not being able to define them), call them out on that.
If you have any questions you can PM me or @ me in the comments.
Note
I only @ed RationalMadman because I'm using an idea he had in the notes for my RFD, and I don't want to take credit for his idea that it was satire. Also, thank you for doing basic win-loss vote, those are the best.
RFD
I vote con but it was a lot harder for me than it would have been if I took Pro at face value. At face value, he has a bunch of no evidence disproved points while Con, despite dropping his case in the last speech, disproves everything with enough doubt, especially coupled with his BOP he set and definitions, that it's an easy vote. However, the idea that this was a satirical performance was really interesting and one that I end up believing is the intent of the Pro, but since this doesn't come with a BOP or a reason to prefer the performance, I vote Con.
Comments
Pro
If you are simply a troll with no intent of winning, you can disregard this, but if you want to use your troll approach and win, then there's a way to do that. For example, in this debate, your resolution, description, and first round speech would be fine, but after that you should run a kritik that "engaging with far right bait is harmful to education and fairness because it gives them legitimacy. Vote aff to endorse the deplatforming of the alt-right and far right." This allows you to troll people into a trap that gives you an easy win if you can justify that the education outweighs the unfairness of shifting the debate.
Con
You did really well on the arguments and line by line and BOP definition work, so you had a really good strategy going in. If you look at the notes I give Pro, these kinds of debates can be a trap for a kritikal argument, meaning you should do some preempts like shifting the debate is unfair or read your own kritik at them, for example "being satirical is unfair because I don't know what the debate is about and I can't engage meaning this entire debate is meaningless, vote con to endorse literal speeches and resolutions." If he's satirical, this is a lot to deal with, if he's not, then you're probably guaranteed the win and can lose the words.
If y'all have questions, you can PM me or @ me in the comments.
RFD
Argumentation
Really easy ballot. Con establishes a definition and shared BOP and this isn't challenged. Con then creates four reasons that children are inferior. Pro negates these somewhat well and his answers are dropped by Con for a lot of them, but he doesn't go for these so they don't matter. BOP shared means that I see all the ways they are superior, all the ways they are inferior, and I see which number is higher, and it's 4-0, so easy Con vote. To address the last speech of Pro, this was a huge shift in the debate that I felt was easily answered by Con by talking about how you are shifting and you haven't discussed cyberbullying once.
Conduct
I give Pro conduct for one major reason, and this is a comment made in round two by Con where they say "black people were inferior". Con does damage control for the statement saying that it's the perception of white people at the time, and the resolution doesn't define the perception we are starting from. I feel this is a problematic statement because you're saying that previous racism is a justification to treat other people in a lesser way, and it's just a bad position to be on.
Notes
Pro
I know it's a joke debate, but you can handle it better. At the beginning, establish some impossible framing and BOP and list reasons it's better. For example, "Con must prove that every adult is better than every child in every way to prove the resolution false". You can then list grammatical reasons, logical reasons, and fairness reasons that this is the best way to approach the debate. On top of this, don't put all your eggs in one basket like you did, keep your other answers on the board so you have a shot at winning if your hail mary fails.
Con
This is a joke debate, as can be seen from Pro's lack of a description and first Pro round, lean into this. I don't know if you've seen the meme that says "If video games make children violent, why are they still so easy to beat the s!@# out of?" Use arguments like that because Pro isn't going to take you seriously anyways. Also, another way to handle the joke debates is to kritik it because they're never structured in a way to withstand it, for example, "Pro, as the author of the res, not having a description is bad for debate because X,Y, and Z, so vote Con to only endorse debates with descriptions." Despite all this, you did really well with your arguments and handled your strategy really well, so you don't need to change your strat if you don't want to, just wanted to add tools to the toolbelt.
Sorry to ping you for month old comment, but I was looking at these as I was going to judge the round. Do you think that they need to be defined in the description, or could they be defined in the first speech and become a piece of the debate.
The reason the Bible being unspecific isn't enough for me to vote in favor of pro is because the fact that most believers believe that means there's an implicit value. That coupled with the fact there's a huge doubt in what science says to the existence of time,I can vote for the Bible.
RFD
So the first thing I look at in the debate is the question of all of the rules Pro sets up and if they are self violated and so forth. I actually really vibed with the arguments made by Con that Pro was using kritiks and semantics and that should be an immediate loss, but that was dropped for an argument created in the second round that Pro was being generally shitty in how he forced Con to be on a higher pedestal of BOP and that Pro prempts a bunch of Bible answers but then says no Bible. I buy that for conduct. For the argumentation, however, Con is winning on the framing in the sense that I have to look at the Bible validity question and ask if it's true or not. Based on philosophical and historical evidence, it is. Therefore, the Bible saying it's 10,000 years old is literal and supremely true. I also have enough of a doubt on the validity of science to make it easier, but that isn't really necessary for this debate.
Comments for Pro
Be careful trying to redefine yourself from your description. I know you made a typo and it happens, but that is a semantic argument, 100%. Also, make sure you don't drop really important framing arguments, for example, when Con says the BOP is all on you. If he hadn't of also dropped it, that means you have to prove everything, which makes the debate that much harder. Lastly, make sure your on the same level as your opponent. You do really good analysis of the line by line of science, but when the validity of science is questioned, you have to justify that with some empiricist philosophy, not just extend your "facts" as untouched.
Comments for Con
Don't drop really good meta-debate arguments. Your argument about Pro having the entire BOP was dropped by Pro, meaning a basic extension would be an automatic restructuring of my vote in your favor. Also, your argumentation that Pro used kritiks and semantics are automatic wins across the board if you prove them, really hit hard on those, especially the semantic one since the answer Pro used was "I used semantics for good, so it's ok". Next, Pro challenging the Bible's credibility isn't a kritik, especially since it wasn't a rule, just a preempt. A kritik would be more along the lines of "the Bible is an ultimate source, so true or not it's an unfair and non educational tool to debate with" or "the Bible justifies queerphobic violence and debaters who use it should be dropped for that reason". One of those is more a meta-debate kritik while the other is a political kritik, but that proves the point. Lastly, a really good religious argument to use as a really good shield to answers is the Leap of Faith by Kierkegaard, which just says that even if it seems like a bad idea, all will be answered if you accept it.
Really good debate and a really tough decision. If y'all have any questions, either use the comments or DM me.
Same to you, comrade. Yeah, I feel bad just dipping, but I'm happy to be back, even if I did have to create a new email and account and do the entire hassle.
I've actually had this debate with Intelligence. My old account was Ancap460 (hoping to avoid that label for a couple reasons, political or otherwise), and I don't remember how it turned out, but I remember that arg and my answers.
I used to have an account a long time ago, but I got really busy. With everything back on track, I hope to get back into the community, so best of luck to you in the community.
Let me know when you create another debate.
Kritiks are fun, comrade. Also, I won't be able to get to this till tomorrow, unfortunately.
I understand the confusion now with my RFD. I had a grammatical typo and it was a short typed RFD, which isn't fair to y'all as debaters, and I'm sorry. I was saying don't drop the win condition Con creates in the second round and not answer it in the third, their win condition being the fictional appreciation. You never answer it directly and just extend your second round speech as an answer without telling a judge why it is an answer. I hope that clarifies more, and if it doesn't, then we can discuss it after the voting period to not violate any rules.
Also, I hope you have more than your baseless accusation and the fact I voted against you as the reason that I'm not eligible to vote, because the system auto allows people to vote when they meet the requirements.
RFD
I vote Con because I don't believe that Pro meets their BOP. Going off the third round resolution, Con says the BOP is for Pro to give a new theory. Pro says it's not and says look at the description, which has no explicit BOP. Con then says the BOP is for Pro to show the missing mechanism, and they simply don't. I buy that there is evidence the microbes evolve quickly and beneficially, I buy the algae has evolved to multicellular, and I buy that the lizards can't switch back and forth because they're evolving. (This list without context sounds like an Alex Jones rant) This fulfills that evolution can happen fast enough, to cause microbes to be humans.
Notes
Pro
Don't switch the debate in the middle, make the resolution more clear. On top of this, if you want to refer to the description to answer claims on what the BOP is, then put an explicit BOP in the description. You spend a lot of time just not engaging with Con's sources and argumentation. For example, you make a baseless claim about one of his sources, he cites why that's wrong from the source, you extend it and add another one in the next speech. Algae and lizard egg/live birth was full of this. Use direct sources to clash, so Con can't just extend their source as an answer.
Con
I don't understand why you dropped the BOP that Pro has to have an alternate theory. There was a lot of argumentation on why it was a good BOP and Pro didn't answer it, meaning it was an instant win for you. Also, you should have called Pro out on the resolution shift as a reason to vote Con.
If y'all have any questions, you can PM me or @ me in the comments.
RFD
I vote con because without BOP (Burden Of Proof) analysis, BOP falls on Pro to prove the resolution true. This means that we look at his singular argument about how to handle terrorists and ask if it proves the resolution true. Con shows that terrorists aren't handled by the police and Pro doesn't answer this, making it a good Con argument.
Notes
Pro
Don't put all your eggs in one basket and rely the entire debate on one argument. Also, add sources hyperlinked into the debate.
Con
Don't forget to extend your arguments you made in the first round. Pro didn't answer them, but you still need to point out that they dropped them or you end up dropping them to.
I always forget to put this in my RFD comment. If y'all have any questions, you can PM me or @ me in the comments.
RFD
I vote pro because I buy that AI saves lives. I don't feel comfortable voting on a new argument in the last speech that con made, but it's outweighed anyways. Lastly, the idea that we can't beat AI brought up by Con is answered by Pro by him saying that it's supposed to allow us to free ourselves from menial tasks.
Notes
Pro
Don't drop your point. That means that when you bring up an idea (like AI can save lives), if your opponent doesn't answer it, say they dropped it and you extend it. Also, try to use sources.
Con
Make sure you answer the points made by Pro. Try to not make new arguments in the last speech, it's super abusive because Pro doesn't get a chance to answer it, meaning some judges (myself included) won't vote on it. Lastly, use sources.
I read the whole debate, and I'm sorry you feel the need to report my vote without asking me first. The problem is this is directly countered because you can appreciate something that isn't real, people appreciating fictional depictions proves this. This means that Con can appreciate the fictional scenario. Is there a more specific argument you think I'm not weighing that preempted the fictional point, since you dropped it going forward?
If y'all have any questions, you can PM me or @ me in the comments.
RFD
I first see that BOP is on Con, so the question is do they prove that "Con fails to appreciate that Pro is in love with him/her/them." I believe Con appreciates the fictional scenario that would lead to Pro being in love with Con, especially since there's no argumentation against it.
Notes
Pro
Don't drop there win condition in the second round. That will do you in any debate where the other debater is good enough to say you dropped the biggest piece of offense.
Con
Don't be afraid to use yourself as a piece. Pro says that they don't love you, but say that you PERCEIVE him to love you, for example. When you are a piece of the resolution, that means you can affect it.
RFD
Sources
Con doesn't have sources, very easy choice for this section.
Argumentation
There's a couple of really easy places for me to vote. With no BOP analysis done, I default that BOP falls on pro. Pro makes the mistake of dropping some of his most powerful arguments (gaslighting, got me YET, etc.) but I still believe they fulfill their burden for a couple of reasons. Firstly, his last will and testament is for me to vote for him. This is a request that I've never given a reason to ignore, so even if you got him after that speech, I still vote for his last will and testament. Even if he wasn't gotten, I vote that, based on his ESP with 68 ping, this is proof that he will die to them in the future as they are working to get him. Secondly, his argumentation that the chips are technically improbable is dropped, meaning that there is no chip, you haven't gotten him, your still working towards getting him. Third, the argument that this is all in the past since you have the last speech, I somewhat protect against new arguments in the last speech, so weighing that possibility against Pro's ESP doesn't outweigh.
Notes
Pro
You drop a lot of really good arguments like gaslighting and the YET argument. Don't drop things that are ignored win conditions. Also, be careful for breaking your own rules, you identify Con as them which could be an immediate loss if they hammered that out.
Con
Don't put all your eggs in one basket. This one argument about it being in the past because it's the last speech, this is new and only one thing. This is very risky and it didn't pay off. Make sure to keep your other time arguments up, microchip, etc. Also, when Pro breaks their own rule (calls you them despite not being able to define them), call them out on that.
If you have any questions you can PM me or @ me in the comments.
Note
I only @ed RationalMadman because I'm using an idea he had in the notes for my RFD, and I don't want to take credit for his idea that it was satire. Also, thank you for doing basic win-loss vote, those are the best.
RFD
I vote con but it was a lot harder for me than it would have been if I took Pro at face value. At face value, he has a bunch of no evidence disproved points while Con, despite dropping his case in the last speech, disproves everything with enough doubt, especially coupled with his BOP he set and definitions, that it's an easy vote. However, the idea that this was a satirical performance was really interesting and one that I end up believing is the intent of the Pro, but since this doesn't come with a BOP or a reason to prefer the performance, I vote Con.
Comments
Pro
If you are simply a troll with no intent of winning, you can disregard this, but if you want to use your troll approach and win, then there's a way to do that. For example, in this debate, your resolution, description, and first round speech would be fine, but after that you should run a kritik that "engaging with far right bait is harmful to education and fairness because it gives them legitimacy. Vote aff to endorse the deplatforming of the alt-right and far right." This allows you to troll people into a trap that gives you an easy win if you can justify that the education outweighs the unfairness of shifting the debate.
Con
You did really well on the arguments and line by line and BOP definition work, so you had a really good strategy going in. If you look at the notes I give Pro, these kinds of debates can be a trap for a kritikal argument, meaning you should do some preempts like shifting the debate is unfair or read your own kritik at them, for example "being satirical is unfair because I don't know what the debate is about and I can't engage meaning this entire debate is meaningless, vote con to endorse literal speeches and resolutions." If he's satirical, this is a lot to deal with, if he's not, then you're probably guaranteed the win and can lose the words.
If y'all have questions, you can PM me or @ me in the comments.
I forgot to add this at the end of the RFD, but if you have any questions, you can PM me or @ me in the comments.
RFD
Argumentation
Really easy ballot. Con establishes a definition and shared BOP and this isn't challenged. Con then creates four reasons that children are inferior. Pro negates these somewhat well and his answers are dropped by Con for a lot of them, but he doesn't go for these so they don't matter. BOP shared means that I see all the ways they are superior, all the ways they are inferior, and I see which number is higher, and it's 4-0, so easy Con vote. To address the last speech of Pro, this was a huge shift in the debate that I felt was easily answered by Con by talking about how you are shifting and you haven't discussed cyberbullying once.
Conduct
I give Pro conduct for one major reason, and this is a comment made in round two by Con where they say "black people were inferior". Con does damage control for the statement saying that it's the perception of white people at the time, and the resolution doesn't define the perception we are starting from. I feel this is a problematic statement because you're saying that previous racism is a justification to treat other people in a lesser way, and it's just a bad position to be on.
Notes
Pro
I know it's a joke debate, but you can handle it better. At the beginning, establish some impossible framing and BOP and list reasons it's better. For example, "Con must prove that every adult is better than every child in every way to prove the resolution false". You can then list grammatical reasons, logical reasons, and fairness reasons that this is the best way to approach the debate. On top of this, don't put all your eggs in one basket like you did, keep your other answers on the board so you have a shot at winning if your hail mary fails.
Con
This is a joke debate, as can be seen from Pro's lack of a description and first Pro round, lean into this. I don't know if you've seen the meme that says "If video games make children violent, why are they still so easy to beat the s!@# out of?" Use arguments like that because Pro isn't going to take you seriously anyways. Also, another way to handle the joke debates is to kritik it because they're never structured in a way to withstand it, for example, "Pro, as the author of the res, not having a description is bad for debate because X,Y, and Z, so vote Con to only endorse debates with descriptions." Despite all this, you did really well with your arguments and handled your strategy really well, so you don't need to change your strat if you don't want to, just wanted to add tools to the toolbelt.
Sorry to ping you for month old comment, but I was looking at these as I was going to judge the round. Do you think that they need to be defined in the description, or could they be defined in the first speech and become a piece of the debate.
The reason the Bible being unspecific isn't enough for me to vote in favor of pro is because the fact that most believers believe that means there's an implicit value. That coupled with the fact there's a huge doubt in what science says to the existence of time,I can vote for the Bible.
RFD
So the first thing I look at in the debate is the question of all of the rules Pro sets up and if they are self violated and so forth. I actually really vibed with the arguments made by Con that Pro was using kritiks and semantics and that should be an immediate loss, but that was dropped for an argument created in the second round that Pro was being generally shitty in how he forced Con to be on a higher pedestal of BOP and that Pro prempts a bunch of Bible answers but then says no Bible. I buy that for conduct. For the argumentation, however, Con is winning on the framing in the sense that I have to look at the Bible validity question and ask if it's true or not. Based on philosophical and historical evidence, it is. Therefore, the Bible saying it's 10,000 years old is literal and supremely true. I also have enough of a doubt on the validity of science to make it easier, but that isn't really necessary for this debate.
Comments for Pro
Be careful trying to redefine yourself from your description. I know you made a typo and it happens, but that is a semantic argument, 100%. Also, make sure you don't drop really important framing arguments, for example, when Con says the BOP is all on you. If he hadn't of also dropped it, that means you have to prove everything, which makes the debate that much harder. Lastly, make sure your on the same level as your opponent. You do really good analysis of the line by line of science, but when the validity of science is questioned, you have to justify that with some empiricist philosophy, not just extend your "facts" as untouched.
Comments for Con
Don't drop really good meta-debate arguments. Your argument about Pro having the entire BOP was dropped by Pro, meaning a basic extension would be an automatic restructuring of my vote in your favor. Also, your argumentation that Pro used kritiks and semantics are automatic wins across the board if you prove them, really hit hard on those, especially the semantic one since the answer Pro used was "I used semantics for good, so it's ok". Next, Pro challenging the Bible's credibility isn't a kritik, especially since it wasn't a rule, just a preempt. A kritik would be more along the lines of "the Bible is an ultimate source, so true or not it's an unfair and non educational tool to debate with" or "the Bible justifies queerphobic violence and debaters who use it should be dropped for that reason". One of those is more a meta-debate kritik while the other is a political kritik, but that proves the point. Lastly, a really good religious argument to use as a really good shield to answers is the Leap of Faith by Kierkegaard, which just says that even if it seems like a bad idea, all will be answered if you accept it.
Really good debate and a really tough decision. If y'all have any questions, either use the comments or DM me.
I know a lot of people are calling the topic vague, but I'm really excited for it. Gives me a chance to attack it from two sides.
Would you want to do this debate with longer time for argumentation?
Funny enough, I'm just copying topics from a website. Also funny enough, I know why you won last time, so I just have to do better this time, comrade.
Don't worry, I fully understand the difference. There's much bigger fish to fry anyways in this debate.
Hope you like the K.
Same to you, comrade. Yeah, I feel bad just dipping, but I'm happy to be back, even if I did have to create a new email and account and do the entire hassle.
I've actually had this debate with Intelligence. My old account was Ancap460 (hoping to avoid that label for a couple reasons, political or otherwise), and I don't remember how it turned out, but I remember that arg and my answers.
I used to have an account a long time ago, but I got really busy. With everything back on track, I hope to get back into the community, so best of luck to you in the community.