JRob

I'm not a rap person, but this was entertaining.

Argument to CON - so many points tied into public perception and pop culture, and it's harder to deny that CON has the more cohesive rap - PRO is hugely talented, but all those rhyming couplets really make CON's side a little more groovy. (Groovy, baby.)

If only the real world equivalent was this eloquent.

Bias: I must start out by addressing my personal bias in this particular topic - I am very much against smoking. A somewhat cliche reason, I suppose - a member of my family passed away from AML - mentioned in PRO's R1 - a few years ago. (Smoked like a chimney all their lives, their words.) That said, I've decided to vote anyway - I have no firm stance on the criminalisation of smoking. Will do my best to remain impartial - onto the RFD.

Sources: Tied.

[PRO, your sources in R1 were a bit tricky to keep a track of. CON, I haven't penalised PRO for using an irrelevant source - as you point out in your conclusion - rather I consider the point the source was used in to be moot.]

S&G: Tied.

[Unremarkable.]

Conduct:

[I went and had a look at the voting policy - evidently the rule of thumb is "half or more" or if it breaks the mutually agreed upon rules of the debate. Given that it's just a single round forfeited and that there were no discernible mutually agreed rules, I've decided to not award any conduct points to either side. If I'm misinterpreting the policy somehow, please let me know.]

Argument: [Main points - other points encompassed within.]

1. Health;

PRO, I was moved by your ethos-driven points and your reasoning here is sound. It would have been beneficial to create a stronger tie to why smoking should be illegal - as opposed to the message given in your introduction, "No one should smoke" - but I completely understand where you're coming from. CON, your response to this point is about as strong as it can be - personally I wish that you hadn't taken the route of co-morbidities - 10% is still a 500% increase in incidence compared to people who haven't picked up a cigarette - but I suppose in this instance it's the strongest choice, distasteful as it may be. Still, this point falls to PRO - "smoking is bad for your health" is hard to deny.

2. Economic Impact;

This point falls in favour of CON. To ban something because it is expensive isn't a convincing point in itself seems contradictory - while it is costly, so is alcohol - and both make the American government an obscene amount of money via taxation. CON's counter point to this is the regulation as opposed to prohibition of alcohol despite its more severe economic impact - and PRO's response "alcohol can be good" doesn't quite have the same weight when considering that CON has already shown alcohol to be the more detrimental to overall health of the general population.

3. Environmental Impact;

Favouring CON. PRO's last word on this is something to akin to "What do we lose by banning smoking? It isn't essential."; and CON's response aptly remarks to ban polluting recreational activities by that basis would see America banning effectively everything - which is absurd. I would consider this point further if a stronger case was made on the side of PRO - perhaps drawing in whether or not environmental damage outweighs revenue - but of course the answer to this is tighter regulation, so. CON.

4. Criminalisation Problems - Legal & Societal

Favouring CON. Using the Prohibition as a historical precedent was a very canny move on their part, and the practical/legal problems with banning smoking outright aren't really addressed by PRO.

5. Regulation v. Ban

The crux of the debate - falls to CON. After the idea of regulation was introduced, it was up to PRO to show why 'mere regulation' would be ineffective when compared to criminalisation. (PROhibition, if you will.) PRO attempts to do this by using CON's source, ("...only 5%...") and is quickly and soundly corrected and rebutted.

Argument: Point awarded to CON.

To both sides:

PRO: Was an uphill battle - and you did well. If the debate was "you shouldn't smoke", I would have given you the argument point a million times out of a million - but CON has much more than soundly shown that criminalisation isn't the solution to this problem. It might have been beneficial to relate prohibition on illegal recreational drugs to smoking? I'm unsure, of course - especially given the strength of your opponent's rebuttals. [Maybe even the involuntary aspect of smoking, severe addiction and inability to change without intervention? Then again, regulation would be a sound solution to this as well - I digress.]
CON: I genuinely can't think of anything substantial to say - your argument is bedrock. I feel it was a little unnecessary to try and contest PRO's "smoking are bad for you" argument - but that's likely my personal bias speaking.

Cool beans. Little bit morbid, but a fun read. Let me know if there are any flaws in my RFD, best of luck with the other voters.

Sources: Tied. (Lean PRO.)
SG: Tied.
Conduct: Tied.
Arguments: See comment ten.

Sources: Tied, but very nearly went to PRO.

- CON, your use of Source 6 was a mess.

"Another Proof of Neurobiological Study. This one is a more complex study than the previous one I cited and guess what, with all the data analysis through not only hypothetical statistics but also with MRI involvement, the result is wonderfully obvious."

- The conclusions of academic papers are never "wonderfully obvious".
- "Another Proof of Neurobiological Study" doesn't make any sense as a sentence.
- The study concludes that there is a measurable difference between a healthy control and a pedophile. (Quote, "As hypothesized, healthy controls showed significantly higher ratings of moral reprehensibility regarding all three types of offenses compared to pedophilic non-offenders.") In what way does this support your argument that "pedophilia is hardly any disorder"? I see two possibilities - I strongly suspect the former.

1. That CON has misinterpreted the source entirely.
2. That CON has not adequately explained why the source backs up their argument - especially not adequately enough to use the phrase "wonderfully obvious."

Spelling and Grammar: Tie.

No serious errors.

Conduct: Tie.

No serious issues.

Argument: Vote cast for CON!

PRO had to show that pedophilia was a mental illness, and mental illnesses are not inherently 'immoral'. Immoral was defined by CON without contention in R1, as "conflicting with generally or traditionally held moral principles". So, with a little bit of reading between the lines, PRO had to show that:

"Pedophilia doesn't conflict with generally or traditionally held moral principles.", or:

"Sexual feelings directed toward children do not conflict with generally or traditionally held moral principles."

It is this voter's position that PRO did most definitely not prove this statement. Further RFD below in comments - specifically comment #10.

Okay, so: this was tough. Tough to follow and tough to decide.

In sources, CON wins by a landslide. Round 1 - which is where the bulk of PRO's argument is set up - there are no sources to back any of the (at times) extravagant claims. There are a few instances where PRO evidently merely skims their own source - for example, the "cloned sisters of dolly" source states that they'll be euthanised at age ten, and that there may be evidence of more rapid than normal ageing. PRO makes quite a big deal of saying that they are "are all healthily at 13 years old", which is plainly contradictory.

In argument,

- Cloning = Good Pop Growth.

PRO holds that population growth is beneficial for space colonisation and "to ensure that humanity has hegemony over the galaxy or at least a fighting chance against possible alien empires". Frankly, this is the strangest line of thought PRO could have taken to justify human cloning, and CON's refutation that "troop quality and tech advancement" is more important to invest in is satisfactory enough to disregard this point. As for space colonisation - that is extremely hypothetical, and without the sources behind it, this voter considers it a moot point.

- Cloning = more research capability, more organ/blood donors.

PRO: this is your STRONGEST point. I would have loved to have seen an expansion on this point specifically - HOW diseases might be treated with research from human cloning, statistics about enormous donor lists, deaths caused by the lack of donor organs and blood, economic/health/research benefit of lab-grown human organs. While CON doesn't do a fantastic job of rebutting this point - "What ... is wrong with ... with animal [experimentation]?" - it isn't presented that great to begin with.

- Cloning = reanimation of great minds.

I like this point - but CON does a pretty good job in rebutting it in R2, to which PRO's response is: "it can't hurt to try." When we're talking about the creation of an entire individual - or multiple individuals at incredible cost to serve a purpose, this reason isn't really good enough. No bills are put through in parliament because "It can't hurt to try.", especially when they're this dangerously close to eugenics.

Cloning: Health Problems

a) Cloning = unethical, since clones die. b) Cloning = unethical, since women's health detriment. c) Cloning = unethical, since clones can't consent to being created. PRO rebuts (a) with "gametogenesis", CON changes tact to anti-eugenics. The women's health detriment point seems to be dropped. The gist of PRO's rebuttal to (c) is vaguely an accusation to CON of being ableist. This voter decides that knowingly creating children that MIGHT have serious problems - not just mentally but physically - is not a good idea. And so CON's point stands.

Cloning: Social Problems

Creating a new form of chattel slavery, "the Island" style. Well sourced. PRO states that - according to the framework - ethical problems should be considered second - but that does not state that they shouldn't be considered.

Overall, CON's points aren't as 'heavy' as PRO's. PRO doesn't really provide backup to a LOT of their claims, though, and CON's refutations are markedly stronger. On the surface of the debate, I would agree with PRO - but CON has thrown more than enough doubt on PRO's arguments for me to change my mind.

Vote cast for CON!

If I might be so audacious as to offer feedback to both sides:

PRO: Come back down to earth. Galactic dominance and colonising the cold reaches of space are perhaps not the best place to focus on when talking about the benefits of human cloning. Your point on research and health benefits could have been split in two and expanded on for a lot more weight, and if that point was done well I likely would have been on your side. When Logos rules, evidence is king. Well fought!

CON: The last Round was a little desperate - come home strong. Maybe refrain from referring to your opponent's arguments as "nonsense". It would have been great to see more attention drawn to some of PRO's claims - how do extra cadavers cure cancer? How does human cloning protect us from aliens? Well done!

Great work to both sides - an interesting read. In my mind, CON won by a hair - but I'm sure there are others that would find PRO to be the victor. Hopefully you guys get some more votes before the voting period concludes. Good luck to both of you!