There's an experiment where the reactions of individuals are tested in a sort of real world "Trolley Problem" - will post a link to the video with your permission. (It doesn't quite support either PRO or CON, but you might find it interesting.)
[Spent way too long writing that. Please let me know if there are any issues with my RFD. I'm a novice by this site's standard, and if there are any major issues I've overlooked in my consideration I'll be quite happy to report my own vote for removal.]
PRO, R1:
P1: Cost; PRO outlines that AE has become cheaper.
P2: Health; PRO outlines that AE is more environmentally friendly and creates more jobs.
P3: Trends; PRO outlines that AE is attracting billions of dollars in investment worldwide to conclude that AE is a financially viable alternative.
P4: Electric Support; PRO outlines that AE is reliable and could potentially be as cheap as current methods of energy by 2030.
Voter Notes;
- The relevance of job creation to health...?
- The job creation point's source relies on a Forbes article that specifies jobs in the US - the US is not reflective of the world.
CON, R2:
P1: Cost; Solar panels pollute, violate the 2nd ThermoD.
P2: Health; CON argues that AE produces the same amount of pollution, but in different areas.
P3: Trends: 2nd ThermoD.
P4: Electric Support: 2nd ThermoD.
Voter notes;
- Solar panels aren't the only type of AE.
- CON offers no evidence in P2, Health.
- CON offers no source that backs the claim regarding the 2nd Law of ThermoD: LumenLearning, Boundless Chemistry, "The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of any isolated system always increases."; the voter notes that the relationship between the sun and a solar panel is not an "isolated system", and it is completely plausible - and even logical - that a solar panel produces more useful energy than is required to make it. (The same can be said for an apple tree, for instance - it requires minimal energy to plant a seed and water it, but ultimately the useful energy output of a tree is greater than that of a seed.)
PRO, R3:
- Notes the unreliability of Quora and the contradiction between CON and the source.
- Reaffirms that solar panels are environmentally viable.
Voter notes;
- One of PRO's sources here is malfunctional. CON does not notice this.
CON, R3:
- Recycling Solar; CON uses two sources* to again note the recycling/disposal cost of solar panels.
- Recycling Wind; CON notes the disposal cost of wind turbines.
- EROEI & ESOEI; CON references Wikipedia - noting the EROEI values for several types of energy.
- "Shocking Conclusions"; CON concludes: "...we need to focus on WIND and COMPRESSED AIR.", as well as a passing glance at "microreactors".
Voter notes;
- *CON cherry picks source [01]. In context, the "cost-revenue" ratio refers to the COST of recycling a panel compared to the REVENUE for selling the recycled materials - not cost of producing a panel to revenue of energy production. (To clarify - the source complains that it is cheaper to dump solar panels as opposed to recycle them.)
- CON seems to advocate for wind and compressed air - one of which is an AE, the other of which is a method of storing energy as opposed to generating it.
PRO, R4:
- Attempts to reaffirm that solar panel was can be managed effectively.
- Notes that CON dropped the "Trends" card.
CON, R4:
- Reaffirms that solar panel production pollutes the environment.
- Notes that wind turbines could be built from less polluting materials.
- States that fiberglass used in wind turbine construction is non-recyclable.
- States that the "trends" card is "immaterial" to the debate resolution.*
Voter notes;
- CON's note regarding the possibility of wind turbines being an effective energy source does not support their argument.
- *While CON states that the "trends" card is irrelevant, CON rebutted this point previously.
Conclusion:
PRO makes an effort to demonstrate that AE is an effective alternative to FF - environmentally and practically. This isn't done flawlessly - noted above - but satisfies the BoP - that AE can effectively replace FF. [Cheap, environment +, practical and gaining traction.] CON does not satisfactorily challenge the Health point, the "Electric Support" (practicality) point, nor the "trends" point. CON's point of "solar panel production is extremely polluting" seems to be criticism with criticism - there are some flaws in AE, as shown, no argument is given in support the opposite, FF. This, combined with CON's endorsement of wind/compressed air, sways this voter to the side of PRO.
If I might be so bold to offer a point to both sides:
- PRO: I was tempted to side with CON. Your source work is immaculate, but I feel like motivation was lost after R1. More vegemite, mate!
- CON: Your structure is certainly something to behold - clean, neat and easy to follow. Your use of bold, italic and CAPITALISATION really helps nail home your argument. Try not to focus your argument around one point - solar panels do pollute, but no mention was made of the myriad of other AE's. Hydro, e.g., 16% 2015 of the world's energy. Maybe it would have been best to focus on how AE isn't ready to overthrow FF yet - FF still is the main producer, and there's a long way to go before AE can effectively produce 100% of the world's energy.
Best of luck with the other voters - well fought, both sides.
PRO might get away with proving that evolution is objectively verifiable - it obviously is, to some extent, otherwise it wouldn't even be a valid theory - but it seems folly to refer to any theory as a fact. Especially in this case, given the changes the theory of evolution has undergone since its conception. It seems likely that this will come down to semantics, but still an interesting topic.
PRO P1: Pedophilia = illness, illness isn't inherently immoral.
This is PRO's strongest point. CON does an okay job of dismantling it in R2 - stating that "...pedophilia is hardly any disorder...", and that but this is weakened by PRO's interpretation of their sixth source, "Neural correlates of moral judgment in pedophilia". (See Sources segment.) CON does not pick up on this in their final round, and the point is dropped in slight favour of CON - who uses their seventh source to drive home the concept that "The medicalization of a condition clearly does not preclude its moral evaluation...".
PRO P2: Pedophilia = thought, can't arrest people based on intent alone.
This point was somewhat poorly done - in PRO's first round, they approach upon the idea of an Orwellian future - being arrested for 'thoughtcrime'. CON slams this argument quite well in their R2 - questioning the relevance of illegality in a debate regarding morality - and PRO doesn't discuss the point at all in R2. Strongly in favour of CON.
[CON put a great deal of effort into proving that emotions or feelings can be immoral, and thus I've surmised their argument into a single point for brevity.]
CON P1: Emotions and feelings aren't exempt from questions of morality, and therefore pedophilia is immoral.
PRO's response to this is insufficient.
1. "con's study focuses on affirming what most people think is immoral" - per definition of "immoral", "...generally or traditionally held moral principles.", immorality is based on "what most people think is immoral".
2. "Clearly, ADHD can't be immoral if the problem is the solution..." - not clear what the rebuttal here actually is, and the "(If you get what I mean)" isn't especially strong rhetoric.
3. "So pedophiles have much less choice than the average person, which con is arguing about." This is the strongest rebuttal to CON's point, and it's sort of touched on in R3, "The point is, con needs to directly note why the thought is immoral in itself.", but ultimately it's on PRO to prove that pedophilia ISN'T immoral, and this simply isn't done.
Overall:
- The tie between pedophilia and other medical disorders was tenuous. Homosexuality was considered a disorder once upon a time, and it is statement of fact that it was considered to be immoral at that time too - at even into the modern age in some parts of the world.
- The 'thoughtcrime' angle was a serious error on the part of PRO.
- The concept that a thought alone is above moral consideration was the main point of contention - but given the definition of immoral as "conflicting with generally or traditionally held moral principles", it's hard to see how PRO could have gained ground here.
Misc. Notes:
- Was an uphill battle for PRO, and with respect to the topic at hand they managed pretty well.
- To both sides - read your sources, please. PRO, the MentalHealth.net site had a section specifically about Sexual Disorders that would have made for a better source. CON, I'm pretty sure you misinterpreted Source 6, and there are some claims in your argument that directly contradict Source 2.
- Best of luck to both of you with the other voters!
I've been thinking on how best to write this comment for longer than I'd like to admit.
Chris - respectively - it's more so witness and be uncomfortable. Your argument - as I've found often in reading your debates - is nothing short of a work of art.
But the position that you present here is... uniquely unpleasant.
Thanks for your feedback! I'll keep that in mind in future.
Understood - removed.
There's an experiment where the reactions of individuals are tested in a sort of real world "Trolley Problem" - will post a link to the video with your permission. (It doesn't quite support either PRO or CON, but you might find it interesting.)
Ah, thanks. Didn't think of that.
"For example, experts do not agree on systemic racism in Australia, because it doesn't exist."
Mate...
Last day for voting.
[Spent way too long writing that. Please let me know if there are any issues with my RFD. I'm a novice by this site's standard, and if there are any major issues I've overlooked in my consideration I'll be quite happy to report my own vote for removal.]
PRO, R1:
P1: Cost; PRO outlines that AE has become cheaper.
P2: Health; PRO outlines that AE is more environmentally friendly and creates more jobs.
P3: Trends; PRO outlines that AE is attracting billions of dollars in investment worldwide to conclude that AE is a financially viable alternative.
P4: Electric Support; PRO outlines that AE is reliable and could potentially be as cheap as current methods of energy by 2030.
Voter Notes;
- The relevance of job creation to health...?
- The job creation point's source relies on a Forbes article that specifies jobs in the US - the US is not reflective of the world.
CON, R2:
P1: Cost; Solar panels pollute, violate the 2nd ThermoD.
P2: Health; CON argues that AE produces the same amount of pollution, but in different areas.
P3: Trends: 2nd ThermoD.
P4: Electric Support: 2nd ThermoD.
Voter notes;
- Solar panels aren't the only type of AE.
- CON offers no evidence in P2, Health.
- CON offers no source that backs the claim regarding the 2nd Law of ThermoD: LumenLearning, Boundless Chemistry, "The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of any isolated system always increases."; the voter notes that the relationship between the sun and a solar panel is not an "isolated system", and it is completely plausible - and even logical - that a solar panel produces more useful energy than is required to make it. (The same can be said for an apple tree, for instance - it requires minimal energy to plant a seed and water it, but ultimately the useful energy output of a tree is greater than that of a seed.)
PRO, R3:
- Notes the unreliability of Quora and the contradiction between CON and the source.
- Reaffirms that solar panels are environmentally viable.
Voter notes;
- One of PRO's sources here is malfunctional. CON does not notice this.
CON, R3:
- Recycling Solar; CON uses two sources* to again note the recycling/disposal cost of solar panels.
- Recycling Wind; CON notes the disposal cost of wind turbines.
- EROEI & ESOEI; CON references Wikipedia - noting the EROEI values for several types of energy.
- "Shocking Conclusions"; CON concludes: "...we need to focus on WIND and COMPRESSED AIR.", as well as a passing glance at "microreactors".
Voter notes;
- *CON cherry picks source [01]. In context, the "cost-revenue" ratio refers to the COST of recycling a panel compared to the REVENUE for selling the recycled materials - not cost of producing a panel to revenue of energy production. (To clarify - the source complains that it is cheaper to dump solar panels as opposed to recycle them.)
- CON seems to advocate for wind and compressed air - one of which is an AE, the other of which is a method of storing energy as opposed to generating it.
PRO, R4:
- Attempts to reaffirm that solar panel was can be managed effectively.
- Notes that CON dropped the "Trends" card.
CON, R4:
- Reaffirms that solar panel production pollutes the environment.
- Notes that wind turbines could be built from less polluting materials.
- States that fiberglass used in wind turbine construction is non-recyclable.
- States that the "trends" card is "immaterial" to the debate resolution.*
Voter notes;
- CON's note regarding the possibility of wind turbines being an effective energy source does not support their argument.
- *While CON states that the "trends" card is irrelevant, CON rebutted this point previously.
Conclusion:
PRO makes an effort to demonstrate that AE is an effective alternative to FF - environmentally and practically. This isn't done flawlessly - noted above - but satisfies the BoP - that AE can effectively replace FF. [Cheap, environment +, practical and gaining traction.] CON does not satisfactorily challenge the Health point, the "Electric Support" (practicality) point, nor the "trends" point. CON's point of "solar panel production is extremely polluting" seems to be criticism with criticism - there are some flaws in AE, as shown, no argument is given in support the opposite, FF. This, combined with CON's endorsement of wind/compressed air, sways this voter to the side of PRO.
If I might be so bold to offer a point to both sides:
- PRO: I was tempted to side with CON. Your source work is immaculate, but I feel like motivation was lost after R1. More vegemite, mate!
- CON: Your structure is certainly something to behold - clean, neat and easy to follow. Your use of bold, italic and CAPITALISATION really helps nail home your argument. Try not to focus your argument around one point - solar panels do pollute, but no mention was made of the myriad of other AE's. Hydro, e.g., 16% 2015 of the world's energy. Maybe it would have been best to focus on how AE isn't ready to overthrow FF yet - FF still is the main producer, and there's a long way to go before AE can effectively produce 100% of the world's energy.
Best of luck with the other voters - well fought, both sides.
This is a one on one debate.
Meanwhile, in Australia...
Didn't see that one coming...
PRO might get away with proving that evolution is objectively verifiable - it obviously is, to some extent, otherwise it wouldn't even be a valid theory - but it seems folly to refer to any theory as a fact. Especially in this case, given the changes the theory of evolution has undergone since its conception. It seems likely that this will come down to semantics, but still an interesting topic.
PRO P1: Pedophilia = illness, illness isn't inherently immoral.
This is PRO's strongest point. CON does an okay job of dismantling it in R2 - stating that "...pedophilia is hardly any disorder...", and that but this is weakened by PRO's interpretation of their sixth source, "Neural correlates of moral judgment in pedophilia". (See Sources segment.) CON does not pick up on this in their final round, and the point is dropped in slight favour of CON - who uses their seventh source to drive home the concept that "The medicalization of a condition clearly does not preclude its moral evaluation...".
PRO P2: Pedophilia = thought, can't arrest people based on intent alone.
This point was somewhat poorly done - in PRO's first round, they approach upon the idea of an Orwellian future - being arrested for 'thoughtcrime'. CON slams this argument quite well in their R2 - questioning the relevance of illegality in a debate regarding morality - and PRO doesn't discuss the point at all in R2. Strongly in favour of CON.
[CON put a great deal of effort into proving that emotions or feelings can be immoral, and thus I've surmised their argument into a single point for brevity.]
CON P1: Emotions and feelings aren't exempt from questions of morality, and therefore pedophilia is immoral.
PRO's response to this is insufficient.
1. "con's study focuses on affirming what most people think is immoral" - per definition of "immoral", "...generally or traditionally held moral principles.", immorality is based on "what most people think is immoral".
2. "Clearly, ADHD can't be immoral if the problem is the solution..." - not clear what the rebuttal here actually is, and the "(If you get what I mean)" isn't especially strong rhetoric.
3. "So pedophiles have much less choice than the average person, which con is arguing about." This is the strongest rebuttal to CON's point, and it's sort of touched on in R3, "The point is, con needs to directly note why the thought is immoral in itself.", but ultimately it's on PRO to prove that pedophilia ISN'T immoral, and this simply isn't done.
Overall:
- The tie between pedophilia and other medical disorders was tenuous. Homosexuality was considered a disorder once upon a time, and it is statement of fact that it was considered to be immoral at that time too - at even into the modern age in some parts of the world.
- The 'thoughtcrime' angle was a serious error on the part of PRO.
- The concept that a thought alone is above moral consideration was the main point of contention - but given the definition of immoral as "conflicting with generally or traditionally held moral principles", it's hard to see how PRO could have gained ground here.
Misc. Notes:
- Was an uphill battle for PRO, and with respect to the topic at hand they managed pretty well.
- To both sides - read your sources, please. PRO, the MentalHealth.net site had a section specifically about Sexual Disorders that would have made for a better source. CON, I'm pretty sure you misinterpreted Source 6, and there are some claims in your argument that directly contradict Source 2.
- Best of luck to both of you with the other voters!
This seems like too much of an uphill battle for the contender. Will be an interesting read if someone can stomach playing Devil's Advocate seriously.
We were in the "hot debates" category for a little while there! Woo! :)
I mention it, but to reiterate - I am genuinely sorry for the length of the first round.
Future, succinct-ness, yes.
An interesting point of view!
Fantastic topic!
I've been thinking on how best to write this comment for longer than I'd like to admit.
Chris - respectively - it's more so witness and be uncomfortable. Your argument - as I've found often in reading your debates - is nothing short of a work of art.
But the position that you present here is... uniquely unpleasant.
Aha, that was a fun read. It probably put you on some sort of watch list - but comedy gold, nonetheless. :)
W h a t ?
Anti-truism?
I'm at a loss for words that anyone can genuinely hold the position of Con, and I certainly hope that Pro does the topic justice...
Just noticed your definition in the debates tab - unsure if you just updated that recently or if I missed it.
If it's the latter, apologies - but I've accepted the debate and look forward to our discussion.
Semantics. "Proposed definition", please.
This is pretty hilarious.
Just spent a good minute cackling at some of the entries on the DDO wiki.
A thousand apologies for pointing out something mildly humorous. I'll remember to be quiet next time.
I'm unsure if this is debate is in jest - though technically if Con wins, Pro wins by virtue of proof. And if Pro wins, Con wins by virtue of proof.
I know this isn't completely true but the irony of this is bringing me to tears laughing.