Christen

http://archive.vn/LD1rb

http://archive.ph/v8nI9

http://archive.ph/VuDov

Like I said in my private conversation with Ragnar, since a scientist is a person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences, a physician is a person qualified to practice medicine and who has some basic knowledge about biology, and biology is a science, physicians would be considered scientists.
https://i.imgur.com/VBoxCR5.png

My problem with Pro however is that Pro seems to focus too heavily on opinions rather than facts and deductive reasoning. This would be okay if the debate itself was based on a subjective question rather than an objective one, but the question is whether or not physicians are scientists. The answer must either be yes or no.

Con says "I agree with this definition of scientist" then immediately contradicts that agreement by proceeding to provide their own definition of a scientist, disagreeing with Pro's definition that Con already agreed with.

Con says "3. Can a doctor be a scientist? Yes of course." meaning the debate should have ended right there as Con admitted that physicians and doctors are technically scientists.

Con reveals that "the number of physician scientists was under 5%". So I think Con's is trying to say that physicians are not scientists because there are... a small number of them? I'm not sure.

It seems to me like the title of this debate should have been changed to "all physicians are scientists" or "some physicians are scientists" since both Pro and Con were struggling to interpret whether or not some or all physicians being scientists would fulfill the the topic of this debate.

Both sides kept going off topic about the No True Scotsman Fallacy and some other things that I didn't think were relevant to the debate, as DynamicSquid already pointed out.

This debate was a bit of a mess, but I still agree with Pro's original claim.

Con loses conduct point for forfeited round then trying to justify it with "I said what had to be said."

Con argues that "The second Amendment is actually a call for terrorist arms against the State."
If this is true, why haven't terrorists taken up arms against the State yet, even though the Second Amendment has existed for at least 200 years now?

Con argues that "when the Federal Government is ever so powerful and tyrannical that people can't even talk and expose it, it most certainly will be at a stage where it can brainwash enough people".
It's going to be extremely difficult for the government to do that since we also have the First Amendment, which protects peoples' right to free speech, and allows them to criticize the government and un-brainwash those people by giving them the real truth.

Con argues that "Every single other nation than the US that is considered a well-developed nation has been able to do this thing that the US says is impossible; take guns out of the hands of criminals."
This is an exaggeration. There are many places that "take guns out of the hands of criminals" and still have mass shootings, like the one back in March 15 2019 in New Zealand Christ Church. Not only that, but Con needs to be careful of Survivorship Bias, which is, in this case, when you focus only on places that banned guns and were successful, while ignoring the places that banned guns and were not successful in having less crime. There is more to crime than just guns alone, and Con is ignoring that.

Con argues that "Using sting operations, surveillance and much else that the US already is fully capable of (NSA is the most sophisticated spy agency and data harvesting centre on the entire planet), it would be extremely feasible for the US to rid its people of guns."
If that's true, why haven't we done that already? Why haven't we already used "sting operations, surveillance and much else" to get rid of the bad guys' guns in high-crime areas like Chicago?

Con argues that "defending against criminals who invade one's house, school or wherever, is actually not at all covered by the Second Amendment".
Yes it is. The Second Amendment refers to the "security of a free state," which means the security of a free state from people like criminals and tyrannical governors. A militia "is composed of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service." http://archive.ph/eW2Z4

Finally, to answer Con's question about "How often is a 'well-regulated militia' that's fighting tyranny ever seen in the US?" It's not about how "often" we fight tyranny. It's about being able to protect ourselves in case of tyranny. It's like a vaccine. It protects you from pathogens in case you get infected in the future. The same thing goes for a well-regulated militia. We don't care about how "often" it's ever seen. We care about making sure it never happens, and making sure we have a chance to fight back.

Reason For Decision:
https://web.archive.org/web/20191029125616/https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KH8aLtYjkA6NqmtadVzCJGbHOOpC_wMk8rohKLa5kBg/edit

Mobile and smartphone users should use this link instead:
https://web.archive.org/web/20191029052319/https://docs.google.com/document/u/1/d/1KH8aLtYjkA6NqmtadVzCJGbHOOpC_wMk8rohKLa5kBg/mobilebasic

Reason For Decision:

https://web.archive.org/web/20191026063436/https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KH8aLtYjkA6NqmtadVzCJGbHOOpC_wMk8rohKLa5kBg/edit

I just had a debate on this very topic if anyone is interested. https://www.debateart.com/debates/1355/smartphones-are-good

Why is Dr Franklin getting banned? What'd he do this time?

I upload my "Reason" to pastebin since it was too many characters to fit here. It is set to expire 6 months from the time I post this.

https://pastebin.com/LCZFzV7x

Con forfeits not 1 but 2 rounds, which is bad conduct. Con's excuse for this is due to lack of "time" despite having an entire week to make arguments.

People should not accept debates to begin with if they know they aren't going to have time on their hands to actually debate.

In fact, Virtuoso has forfeited previous debates due to lack of "time" multiple times already in the past. His debating history and previous debates can be checked to confirm this, so it's not like this is his first time doing it. This is becoming a bad habit.

If he doesn't believe that he will have the time to make arguments, he should simply make it so that there is more time to post arguments, like maybe a month to post arguments instead of a week.

Either way, you can't bite off more than you can chew. In other words, you can't reasonably debate someone AND focus so much on your real life issues at the same time. Debates generally require time, energy, research, and effort. You can't put forth your best arguments when all 4 of those aforementioned things are being used up elsehwere.

Aside from that, both sides seemed to have decent sources as well as spelling an grammar, so I tied those.

This debate was extremely awkward. Both sides forfeited a round, and Dr.Franklin got banned for some reason. Not only that, but there wasn't many arguments to go on due to the 500-character limit, meaning that I have to be more critical of each side.

I awarded "convincing arguments" to con, since his arguments were more specific and easier to understand. Pro argued that "Once the world economy developes properly we can all co operate and make like better and more equal". This argument was extremely vague, in my opinion. Pro should have went into more detail about what he meant when he talked about "the world economy" developing properly as well as making live "better and more equal". Con gave more specific arguments and went into more detail, despite being limited to only 500 characters.

I awarded sources to con since pro didn't give any source.

I award spelling and grammar to con, too. Pro misspelled several words like:
"develope" (it's actually spelled "develop" without that E at the end)
"co operate" (it's one word, not two)
"extatically" (i have no idea what word he was actually trying to spell here; exactly? extremely? excitingly? ecstatically?)
Pro also started multiple sentences without a capital letter and also ended multiple sentences without the period, question mark, or exclamation mark.

I tied conduct, since both sides forfeited a round, so their conduct was equally bad.

Pro's argument that "Complex thing can not happen randomly" and therefore God exists because complex things exist is a logical fallacy known as the Watchmaker fallacy, which is something that this Youtuber debunks very well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHmjHMbkOUM

Con recognizes this fallacy and affirms that "pro would need to prove with 100% certainty that it was exclusively God and no other mythological being creating life anywhere."

Pro says "You do not know if it is a past event or not." then immediately contradicts himself by saying "yes the universe was created." The key word here is "was". That means that it happened sometime in the past. This could have been a few minutes ago or a few decades ago, but it was in the past.

Pro also commits another logical fallacy known as begging the claim, in which he states "it is 100 percent chance that Jesus created life. Because that is a past event and i meet the burden of proof. That life coming without god is zero." His argument is basically that, Jesus created life, because... jesus created life.

Con exposes pro for these fallacies in the other rounds and pro has nothing to say about it.

So I give my vote to con.

forfeit

forfeit

forfeit

forfeit

forfeit

forfeit

forfeit

forfeit

forfeit

forfeit

forfeit

forfeit

Peach is hotter :P

This video of her turned me on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=US3NwfbWetI

Pro stated that he did not forfeit, so he didn't forfeit :P

.,