You deleted your vote, so I don't know whether that means you changed your intention to vote on this or not because of Con's irl distractions.
If you haven't, disregard the following:
IRL distractions aren't an excuse for two reasons.: 1. Con instigated the debate. 2. There was a one week response time.
I'm not wasting my time debating this again.
There are a few subtle instances where Con implies Pro is being manipulative or assumes the intent to deceive, which I am inferring is a passive attack on Pro's character in this debate.:
1. "Uncertainty principle
The comparison PRO uses is completely moronic. The uncertainty is about whether the unresponsive body is a corpse or a person. The zygote is completely different. We know that it is alive, but we have no evidence that killing it would be immoral. PRO argues that he does not need certainty of personhood based on conclusive evidence. This is wrong and also incredibly bad faith."
This first example illustrates Con is implying Pro is being manipulative by suggesting he is being bad faith, and then he drops the word moronic to attack his argument.
2. "Stop lying, Savant. The zygote cannot even exist, much less continue developing, without protection and constant nourishment from the mother. Before week 20, even a fairly developed fetus would die instantly outside of the womb [7]. The mother could kill the zygote by simply refusing to constantly add bodily functions - which you have conceded would not be a harm."
This second example is him name-dropping Savant directly to call him a liar.
3. "PRO invokes a supposedly “binding” and completely made up definition of personhood from the description. But I only need to reject his absurd interpretation of it:
The description does not specify that "any" moral consideration is enough. That was an attempted addition by PRO in R1.
If his intention was to be intellectually honest then he should have specified that crucial detail in the description instead of leaving it open for debate.
If on the other hand he wanted to fight extremely dirty by committing a bait and switch and trapping me in a truism debate, then this is a case of cheating with absurd special rules.
In which case voters are not only allowed but encouraged by the Code of conduct and DART culture to punish PRO and accept my framework instead."
This third example is him accusing Pro of cheating without evidence and urging voters to penalize him without sufficient justification.
if it's an option, i'd prefer the judges make an exception for my opponent just this once.
i don't have a problem with him using ai-generated arguments the entire debate if he needs to.
i will vote on this later, but i just wanted to point out that the times that pro called out con was really unnecessary and could really forfeit the point for conduct, depending on how many times it occurs in this debate
Would you guys like to drop a vote on this?
You deleted your vote, so I don't know whether that means you changed your intention to vote on this or not because of Con's irl distractions.
If you haven't, disregard the following:
IRL distractions aren't an excuse for two reasons.: 1. Con instigated the debate. 2. There was a one week response time.
I'm not wasting my time debating this again.
Would you guys like to cast a vote on this?
Was my awarding of the points for arguments approved?
I'll re-vote properly this time.
As for future voting when awarding or allotting conduct points, I'll also keep that clarification in mind.
There are a few subtle instances where Con implies Pro is being manipulative or assumes the intent to deceive, which I am inferring is a passive attack on Pro's character in this debate.:
1. "Uncertainty principle
The comparison PRO uses is completely moronic. The uncertainty is about whether the unresponsive body is a corpse or a person. The zygote is completely different. We know that it is alive, but we have no evidence that killing it would be immoral. PRO argues that he does not need certainty of personhood based on conclusive evidence. This is wrong and also incredibly bad faith."
This first example illustrates Con is implying Pro is being manipulative by suggesting he is being bad faith, and then he drops the word moronic to attack his argument.
2. "Stop lying, Savant. The zygote cannot even exist, much less continue developing, without protection and constant nourishment from the mother. Before week 20, even a fairly developed fetus would die instantly outside of the womb [7]. The mother could kill the zygote by simply refusing to constantly add bodily functions - which you have conceded would not be a harm."
This second example is him name-dropping Savant directly to call him a liar.
3. "PRO invokes a supposedly “binding” and completely made up definition of personhood from the description. But I only need to reject his absurd interpretation of it:
The description does not specify that "any" moral consideration is enough. That was an attempted addition by PRO in R1.
If his intention was to be intellectually honest then he should have specified that crucial detail in the description instead of leaving it open for debate.
If on the other hand he wanted to fight extremely dirty by committing a bait and switch and trapping me in a truism debate, then this is a case of cheating with absurd special rules.
In which case voters are not only allowed but encouraged by the Code of conduct and DART culture to punish PRO and accept my framework instead."
This third example is him accusing Pro of cheating without evidence and urging voters to penalize him without sufficient justification.
if it's an option, i'd prefer the judges make an exception for my opponent just this once.
i don't have a problem with him using ai-generated arguments the entire debate if he needs to.
i will vote on this later, but i just wanted to point out that the times that pro called out con was really unnecessary and could really forfeit the point for conduct, depending on how many times it occurs in this debate
any takers???
Thanks for the votes
I just realized the deadline, but don't worry. I'll get to this today.
tagging u just incase your interested in this subject
i think this is a quick read if u guys would like to submit a vote
im also out of my depth because i dont play chess or speed chess
the debate is just discussing theory
btw, i had another debate in mind.
the resolution is "aggression is better than defense in speed chess"
would any of u debate this? id like to be pro
would u guys like to place a vote
oh wait nvm there we go
how do i do that
can i accept this debate