Lemming provided arguments with upmost confidence, skillfulness and facts/sources
One example is:
Economics
Wars cost money and time, yes.
But as I argued, wars can also recoup said losses, and often even more, through War's influence upon the world.
Training costs money, war costs money,
War 'is training it is experience,
Wars can gain a country money,
Training 'without war, will only 'cost money.
By Choice?
Switzerland, Japan, and post war Germany,
Were at peace, by the choices of other nations, not themselves.
And 'while a country 'keeps to peace, keeps their military weaker,
They are 'ever at peace, by the choices of 'others.
Morality
"And just for closing: Modern ethical governance requires minimizing suffering and avoiding unnecessary violence whenever possible. That is what i would expect from my government. I guess everyone, as a citizen, would expect the same."
- Umbrellacorp Round 1 ending of first argument.
But I have not 'argued for 'unnecessary suffering or violence.
People 'want violence, conflict, and crusades.
They want it 'more when they have nothing to do.
Look at Covid, and American Protestors, is it an unreasonable theory that many of them were bored, and 'jumped at an excuse to get out of the house to exercise their right of protest?
Additionally, this desire for destruction can increase depending on population size, environment, ideologies.
To give them moral war and crusade, is to give them what they 'want.
And under government policy, ever seeking the favor of the people, just Wars are then pursued.
Discipline, innovation, and solidarity.
I would not say war is the 'only factor which can inspire these.
But it 'is a large and vital one.
No nation 'can achieve in peace, without first being secure in war.
Least that is the picture 'I read in history.
And when their strength was 'less, 'other 'took their peaceful achievements.
And I do not believe 'anything inspires solidarity in a group of humans, as much as an 'outside group.
I cannot agree with your analogy, by my examples of how 'often peacetime militaries fail to keep up.
Humans 'need stress, and pressure, and conflict.
Remove all pressure from a human, as in space for example, human body 'just doesn't do well.
Same for psychology.
"You get the right amount of stress and we call it stimulation.
The goal in life isn't to get rid of stress, the goal in life is to have the right type of stress.
Because when it is the right type we love it.
We jump out of our seats to experience it, we pay good money to get stressed that way.
It tends to be a moderate stressor, where you've got a stressor that's transient.
It's not for nothing that roller coaster rides are not three weeks long, and most of all what they're about is you relinquish a little bit of control in a setting that overall feels safe."
- Robert Sapolsky
I have not advocated for Total War, Totaler Krieg,
A danger 'ever present by the history of humans,
But for a moderated, yet 'real War.
My round 3 summed up I assert,
1, War has economic value.
2, Security in strength
3, Freedom and Purpose to the People
4, The 'Correct, most Achieving Stress for the Military by War
This is a beautiful argument in which counters many of umbrellacorps, and is really beautifully skilfully made
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Lemming // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to Pro (Arguments)
>Reason for Decision: This vote conforms to voting policy and sufficiently explains all points.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Fauxlaw // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to Pro (Arguments) 1 (conduct)
>Reason for Decision: This vote conforms to voting policy and sufficiently explains all points.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: jonrohith // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action: Typically full forfeited debates are not moderated except when the voter votes for the side that didn't forfeit. Pro at least made an argument in round 1 and round 2.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Barney // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Umbrellacorp // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to Pro
>Reason for Decision:
it is not only for the argument, but also for the patience to have dealt with someone that acts like pro in the debates. Not criticising the argument's because both sides have played really well but ideally I'm closer with Pro's ideas. Great debate anyway
>Reason for Mod Action:
Voter does not adaequetly analyze the arguments in this debate.
**************************************************
Vote reported: IamAdityaDhaka
Mod action: Not removed
Reason: Full forfeit debates are not moderated unless they vote for the side that did not forfeit. In this case both debaters made an argument in round 1 but both full forfeited afterwards. As such this debate is not moderated.
Despite the simplicity of Pro’s argument, it rests on a fundamental moral principle: the right to life. The Pro contends that abortion is equivalent to murder — and while not elaborated deeply, this point hinges on the belief that life begins at conception. If one accepts that premise, then abortion becomes the deliberate ending of a human life — which many would agree is morally wrong, regardless of context.
Even without complex statistics or emotional anecdotes, the Pro’s stance draws a clear ethical line.
P2 and P3 flow from modal logic. If something possibly is necessary in one possible world then it is necessary in all worlds. This is an axiom of 5s modal logic.
I understand your issue with the argument. For it to be sound every premise needs to be true. I believe all premises are true. P2-6 is uncontroversial. The only way to attack this argument is through P1. There are only two possible routes for con to take in this argument:
1) Show an MGB is impossible like a square circle
2) Show how an MGB leads to modal collapse.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: pierree // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: Arguments (3) and legibility (1) to con; Sources (2) to PRO
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter fails to explain their vote according to the standards set forth in the code of conduct. @pierree please review the voting policy and you may recast your vote after sufficiently explaining all of your points.
it is nonsense to base the conduct of the debate only on arguments, forfeiting means to drop out the debate, it is not only about the arguments but it is about respecting someone who is dedicating its time for you and with so forfeiting literally means to do not express the own opinion about a point made. That's my point of view, case closed
**************************************************
Vote reported
Pro:
Only one side showed up. Pro gave an actual argument (even if absurd or satirical), while Con said nothing meaningful and just forfeited.
Con:
Didn’t debate. Just called it BS and bailed.
No arguments, no effort. Even a joke debate needs some reasoning — Con gave zero.
THOU IDK BUT UH CON IG, WASN'T ONLINE, MAYBE FOR SOME CERTAIN REASONS, THAT'S WHY THEY DIDN'T REALLY PUBLISH ANY ARGUMENT///// UM WELL SO IDK BUT SHOULDN'T THERE BE SOME SORTA THING FOR A TIE OR WHT IF ONE DEBATEE ISN'T ABLE TO ARGUE???
TBH, I STILL DIDN'T GET WHT THIS WAS ALL///// 😑
The way I interpreted this debate resolution is that the burden of proof lies on Pro to show why Lemming should be a moderator and your burden is to show why he shouldn’t.
You are free to counter arguments and show why other people should be a mod over a Lemming, but that is outside your immediate burden.
Vote:@same1234 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 7 to Pro
>Reason for Decision:
it was pretty good arguments
Reason for Removal: The voter does not justify any of their point allocations, instead merely stating that one side had good arguments” and the other side did not. Each point allocation must be justified with specific examples taken from the debate.
**************************************************
Re BOP: I copied and pasted this from another debate. I will make note of the issue with the BOP. I agree that it should be shared. But I think I have an irrefutable case.
@Yassine Thanks for the suggestions. I'm sorry if my wording wasn't clear. I have never done a debate on this topic before so I thought it would be interesting. Would you be interested in debating me next on this topic?
There is nothing in the COC that says members can’t consult other members in debate arguments. This could warrant the loss of a conduct point, but there is nothing wrong with a member offering assistance. Whether or not that warrants losing a conduct point is to the opinion of the voters. This issue is certainly something I’d consider MEEPing
Pro completelyed ignored every one of Con's opening arguments with their first response, replying with a confusing syllogism that appears to be a complete non-sequitur. It's literally impossible for Con to lose, unless he goes out of his way to concede his opponent's viewpoint that Earth is flat.
Which incredibly, he does, by admitting that Earth's surface is indeed flat.
What?
In spite of all the incoherence and multiple non-sequiturs from Pro, Con never recovers from this grievous concession and I am forced to give Pro points for more convincing arguments.
Regarding sources, I'm disinclined to hover or visit every hyperlink to judge the veracity of all of them, but I'm almost tempted to give Pro source points just because he helpfully labeled them in the first round with the names of the websites. But I won't.
Vote reported: 21Pilots
7 points to PRO
Mod action: Removed
Reason: Fails to explain source, spelling and grammar, and conduct point.
Lemming provided arguments with upmost confidence, skillfulness and facts/sources
One example is:
Economics
Wars cost money and time, yes.
But as I argued, wars can also recoup said losses, and often even more, through War's influence upon the world.
Training costs money, war costs money,
War 'is training it is experience,
Wars can gain a country money,
Training 'without war, will only 'cost money.
By Choice?
Switzerland, Japan, and post war Germany,
Were at peace, by the choices of other nations, not themselves.
And 'while a country 'keeps to peace, keeps their military weaker,
They are 'ever at peace, by the choices of 'others.
Morality
"And just for closing: Modern ethical governance requires minimizing suffering and avoiding unnecessary violence whenever possible. That is what i would expect from my government. I guess everyone, as a citizen, would expect the same."
- Umbrellacorp Round 1 ending of first argument.
But I have not 'argued for 'unnecessary suffering or violence.
People 'want violence, conflict, and crusades.
They want it 'more when they have nothing to do.
Look at Covid, and American Protestors, is it an unreasonable theory that many of them were bored, and 'jumped at an excuse to get out of the house to exercise their right of protest?
Additionally, this desire for destruction can increase depending on population size, environment, ideologies.
To give them moral war and crusade, is to give them what they 'want.
And under government policy, ever seeking the favor of the people, just Wars are then pursued.
Discipline, innovation, and solidarity.
I would not say war is the 'only factor which can inspire these.
But it 'is a large and vital one.
No nation 'can achieve in peace, without first being secure in war.
Least that is the picture 'I read in history.
And when their strength was 'less, 'other 'took their peaceful achievements.
And I do not believe 'anything inspires solidarity in a group of humans, as much as an 'outside group.
I cannot agree with your analogy, by my examples of how 'often peacetime militaries fail to keep up.
Humans 'need stress, and pressure, and conflict.
Remove all pressure from a human, as in space for example, human body 'just doesn't do well.
Same for psychology.
"You get the right amount of stress and we call it stimulation.
The goal in life isn't to get rid of stress, the goal in life is to have the right type of stress.
Because when it is the right type we love it.
We jump out of our seats to experience it, we pay good money to get stressed that way.
It tends to be a moderate stressor, where you've got a stressor that's transient.
It's not for nothing that roller coaster rides are not three weeks long, and most of all what they're about is you relinquish a little bit of control in a setting that overall feels safe."
- Robert Sapolsky
I have not advocated for Total War, Totaler Krieg,
A danger 'ever present by the history of humans,
But for a moderated, yet 'real War.
My round 3 summed up I assert,
1, War has economic value.
2, Security in strength
3, Freedom and Purpose to the People
4, The 'Correct, most Achieving Stress for the Military by War
This is a beautiful argument in which counters many of umbrellacorps, and is really beautifully skilfully made
Sorry this happened. Do you want to redo this debate on the new s ite?
Vote reported: 21pilots
Mod action removed
7 to pro
It was a good argument, and it will be one of the last of debate art,
Good bye DART
This will be my final vote
User does not conform to voting standards
Yes please. Wait a few days
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Lemming // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to Pro (Arguments)
>Reason for Decision: This vote conforms to voting policy and sufficiently explains all points.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Fauxlaw // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to Pro (Arguments) 1 (conduct)
>Reason for Decision: This vote conforms to voting policy and sufficiently explains all points.
**************************************************
I’m ok with that. If you want to do a second debate where it’s much shorter with arguments we can delete this debate and restart.
Sure once I finish my two debates I’m currently in.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: jonrohith // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action: Typically full forfeited debates are not moderated except when the voter votes for the side that didn't forfeit. Pro at least made an argument in round 1 and round 2.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Barney // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to pro
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
**************************************************
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Umbrellacorp // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to Pro
>Reason for Decision:
it is not only for the argument, but also for the patience to have dealt with someone that acts like pro in the debates. Not criticising the argument's because both sides have played really well but ideally I'm closer with Pro's ideas. Great debate anyway
>Reason for Mod Action:
Voter does not adaequetly analyze the arguments in this debate.
**************************************************
This was an interesting debate. Someone please ping me if I do not vote on this debate by the end of the voting period.
Sure thing
Vote reported: ILikePie5
Mod action: Not removed
Reason: full forfeited debates are not moderated
Vote reported: IamAdityaDhaka
Mod action: Not removed
Reason: Full forfeit debates are not moderated unless they vote for the side that did not forfeit. In this case both debaters made an argument in round 1 but both full forfeited afterwards. As such this debate is not moderated.
Despite the simplicity of Pro’s argument, it rests on a fundamental moral principle: the right to life. The Pro contends that abortion is equivalent to murder — and while not elaborated deeply, this point hinges on the belief that life begins at conception. If one accepts that premise, then abortion becomes the deliberate ending of a human life — which many would agree is morally wrong, regardless of context.
Even without complex statistics or emotional anecdotes, the Pro’s stance draws a clear ethical line.
@WyIted - I agree that's always frustrating when debating this topic.
P2 and P3 flow from modal logic. If something possibly is necessary in one possible world then it is necessary in all worlds. This is an axiom of 5s modal logic.
I understand your issue with the argument. For it to be sound every premise needs to be true. I believe all premises are true. P2-6 is uncontroversial. The only way to attack this argument is through P1. There are only two possible routes for con to take in this argument:
1) Show an MGB is impossible like a square circle
2) Show how an MGB leads to modal collapse.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: pierree // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: Arguments (3) and legibility (1) to con; Sources (2) to PRO
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter fails to explain their vote according to the standards set forth in the code of conduct. @pierree please review the voting policy and you may recast your vote after sufficiently explaining all of your points.
it is nonsense to base the conduct of the debate only on arguments, forfeiting means to drop out the debate, it is not only about the arguments but it is about respecting someone who is dedicating its time for you and with so forfeiting literally means to do not express the own opinion about a point made. That's my point of view, case closed
**************************************************
Thanks for a fun debate!!
Vote reported
Pro:
Only one side showed up. Pro gave an actual argument (even if absurd or satirical), while Con said nothing meaningful and just forfeited.
Con:
Didn’t debate. Just called it BS and bailed.
No arguments, no effort. Even a joke debate needs some reasoning — Con gave zero.
THOU IDK BUT UH CON IG, WASN'T ONLINE, MAYBE FOR SOME CERTAIN REASONS, THAT'S WHY THEY DIDN'T REALLY PUBLISH ANY ARGUMENT///// UM WELL SO IDK BUT SHOULDN'T THERE BE SOME SORTA THING FOR A TIE OR WHT IF ONE DEBATEE ISN'T ABLE TO ARGUE???
TBH, I STILL DIDN'T GET WHT THIS WAS ALL///// 😑
Removed - Requested by voter
The way I interpreted this debate resolution is that the burden of proof lies on Pro to show why Lemming should be a moderator and your burden is to show why he shouldn’t.
You are free to counter arguments and show why other people should be a mod over a Lemming, but that is outside your immediate burden.
Vote:@same1234 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 7 to Pro
>Reason for Decision:
it was pretty good arguments
Reason for Removal: The voter does not justify any of their point allocations, instead merely stating that one side had good arguments” and the other side did not. Each point allocation must be justified with specific examples taken from the debate.
**************************************************
I will post my arguments tomorrow
Old debate has been deleted
thanks for the clarification. i am enjoying this debate
Challenge sent. I deleted definitions because I assume most people know what we are talking about. I also updated the rules to say the BOP is shared
I wouldn't mind a parallel debate as it is obvious my opponent isn't even going to try.
I’d love your thoughts on my arguments
Re BOP: I copied and pasted this from another debate. I will make note of the issue with the BOP. I agree that it should be shared. But I think I have an irrefutable case.
Sorry if my wording wasn't clear.
@Yassine Thanks for the suggestions. I'm sorry if my wording wasn't clear. I have never done a debate on this topic before so I thought it would be interesting. Would you be interested in debating me next on this topic?
@Best.Korea please don't preserve your Quran in piss. Piss did nothing to deserve to be preserving a Quran.
There is nothing in the COC that says members can’t consult other members in debate arguments. This could warrant the loss of a conduct point, but there is nothing wrong with a member offering assistance. Whether or not that warrants losing a conduct point is to the opinion of the voters. This issue is certainly something I’d consider MEEPing
VOTE REMOVED: Pucachu
Pro completelyed ignored every one of Con's opening arguments with their first response, replying with a confusing syllogism that appears to be a complete non-sequitur. It's literally impossible for Con to lose, unless he goes out of his way to concede his opponent's viewpoint that Earth is flat.
Which incredibly, he does, by admitting that Earth's surface is indeed flat.
What?
In spite of all the incoherence and multiple non-sequiturs from Pro, Con never recovers from this grievous concession and I am forced to give Pro points for more convincing arguments.
Regarding sources, I'm disinclined to hover or visit every hyperlink to judge the veracity of all of them, but I'm almost tempted to give Pro source points just because he helpfully labeled them in the first round with the names of the websites. But I won't.
Reason: Requested by voter
I agree. This was really fun. I want to do another round with you.
Bump. More votes would be nice
Want to debate me on this next?
Thanks for the vote!
Go ahead!
Atheism
there are no rules with how to do debate arguments. Oro can certainly place their arguments in a google doc
That is correct. We cannot remove arguments.
done
Yeah though I don’t intend on making new arguments in r 2
Settings changed
That’s fine by me
Yeah. How does 1 week arguments and 2 week of voting sound?
Agreed. America won't survive 4 more years.