Total votes: 166
"by the choice of one side to miss at least 40% of the debate, the requirement [to consider arguments] ceases."
2/5 rounds = 40%
"no" is technically more of an assertion than an argument, but it is still more convincing than a failure to show up.
too bad so sad
Concession.
Full forfeiture.
Complete forfeiture
Forfeiture
"by the choice of one side to miss at least 40% of the debate, the requirement [to consider arguments] ceases."
Pro's arguments regarding Muslim law and scripture are very compelling, advocating against war when possible and only punishing what are viewed as the most grievous crimes such as adultery and murder is very peaceful as far as civilizations go. Con's criticisms on the punishments regarding adultery are not particularly strong, as they only point to a single case that is applied as a retroactive punishment and is subject to some degree to adjudication.
However, the argument isn't about the society, it is about the underlying religion. Con has a knockdown argument in the form of eternal punishment for sinful and nonbelievers. Pro tries to dismiss this on the grounds that Con does not believe in the religion of Islam. This is an obviously nonsensical argument, as the people supporting this form of eternal punishment are the ones that DO believe in it.
"by the choice of one side to miss at least 40% of the debate, the requirement [to consider arguments] ceases."
Full forfeiture
Full forfeiture
"by the choice of one side to miss at least 40% of the debate, the requirement [to consider arguments] ceases."
"by the choice of one side to miss at least 40% of the debate, the requirement [to consider arguments] ceases."
"by the choice of one side to miss at least 40% of the debate, the requirement [to consider arguments] ceases."
"by the choice of one side to miss at least 40% of the debate, the requirement [to consider arguments] ceases."
"by the choice of one side to miss at least 40% of the debate, the requirement [to consider arguments] ceases."
Forfeiture.
Concession.
Too bad. :(
"by the choice of one side to miss at least 40% of the debate, the requirement [to consider arguments] ceases."
Forfeiture in absentia
"by the choice of one side to miss at least 40% of the debate, the requirement [to consider arguments] ceases."
'I wont debate a retarded autist who just repeats "Extend, extend, extend".'
Pro concedes by refusing to engage in the debate.
These are some very long arguments, and some of them are filled with technical jargon I don't fully understand, so I am extending some benefit of the doubt that stuff like the name brands and effects of specific drugs as described by Pro are true in cases that aren't contradicted by Con. This may seem unfair, but Pro clearly demonstrates an understanding of pharmacology that exceeds my own, whereas Con's is about the same/slightly below. The DART voting standards don't really address professional authority on a subject, likely because it is difficult to demonstrate, much less verify, in an online debate. Regardless, I deem Pro's knowledgeability sufficient to tie sources.
As far as arguments go, there are some excellent points raised by both. The similarity of drugs like heroin and meth to their prescription 'cousins' is even more extensive than I realized. Con's point that certain drugs can have wildly different effects on different people is valid, if somewhat undermined by the attribution to 'magic' as opposed to individual biological and psychological differences.
Con's assertion about organized criminal violence increasing as a response to the legalization was disappointingly unsourced, given that several countries, such as Portugal as Pro mentioned, have experimented with decriminalization and legalization of a wide variety of previously illegal substances, so data on this front definitely exists.
Outside of that, the rest of the argument essentially boils down to a disagreement about the harm of drugs vs. the freedom of individuals to choose. Overall, the strongest and deciding argument was the comparison by Pro of illegal drugs to prescription ones.
"by the choice of one side to miss at least 40% of the debate, the requirement [to consider arguments] ceases."
"by the choice of one side to miss at least 40% of the debate, the requirement [to consider arguments] ceases."
Also atrocious conduct by Pro (use of the word 'fag', attempting to change the debate conditions to one round, and blitzkrieging on top of the forfeit)
"Should either side forfeit every round or every round after their initial arguments (waiving is not an argument), the debate is considered a Full Forfeiture, and any majority votes against the absent side are not moderated (a vote may still be cast in their favor of the absentee, but is eligible for moderation to verify that it is justified via the normal voting standards)."
"While the sufficiency standard clearly points to appeals to the quantity of arguments not being enough, someone with a single line assertion against a warranted case with sources simply does not merit the same level of consideration. Similarly, someone who never advances their case beyond obvious non-sequiturs, or commits the not even wrong fallacy regarding the resolution, has also not earned detailed analysis beyond pointing that out. I.e., sufficiency goes both ways, A DEBATER MUST FIRST OFFER A SUFFICIENT ARGUMENT FOR SUFFICIENT CONSIDERATION TO OCCUR."
-DArt Voting Policy
Pro's argument consists of the following phrase.
"AS LONG AS YOU PLAY AMOGUS THEN THE MOST SUS THING TO DO IS SET COMPUTER ON FIRE AND IT GIVES ENERGY TO GET THE IMPOSTER DUB AT 999999999 FPS IN 4K"
This clearly meets in my eyes the definition of an insufficient argument.
Normally a forfeit vs an insufficient argument should end in a tie, however, the BoP shouldered by Pro with such a claim is so high that the victory should go to Con by default.
Pro never introduces a new argument in the entire debate, merely rehashing the same claim, that supporting letting people choose is the same as being pro [negative choice], this is reiterated as Christmas celebration and being gay, but never addresses any of Con's contentions.
Con counters easily. The most clear argument is that there is an obvious distinction between supporting the legal right to do something and being 'for' that thing. Con turns Pro's 'paradoxes' on their head, saying "you can be against Christmas, and believe people have a right to celebrate it." (Not explicitly mentioned in the debate, but the most obvious example of this is Jewish people, who don't celebrate Christmas, yet you don't see Israel or Jewish lobbyists trying to ban Christmas)
The only rebuttal that Pro provides is to continue to insist that Con's position is inconsistent and that 'pro-choice' and 'for abortion' are the same.
Although this is a winner selection debate, I do have to mention that Pro's legibility was a factor in my final decision. The use of quote blocks would have made this debate much easier to parse on Pro's side.
Usually I don't bring up stuff like this in winnner selection debates but it needs to be said.
USE THE QUOTE BLOCKS. It is a huge pain in the ass to try and keep track of quotation marks.
This is largely directed at mall since they have a precedent of doing this in the past. AustinL is new and still managed to be more legible than mall by using bold. I still prefer the quote blocks, but anything is more legible over plain text in quotes.
Legibility (Spelling and Grammar) to Con
Now to the actual debate.
Pro's argument is incredibly succinct when you get past the 'fluff'. Because Christmas isn't in the Bible, it shouldn't be celebrated by people to take the Bible as their religious text.
Con counters this with 1. things not mentioned by the Bible aren't inherently bad or condemned by the Bible, 2. a day of specific celebration isn't mutually exclusive to celebrating it every day.
The first is not countered at all, and the second is only weakly. Basically Pro repeats that the Bible doesn't give a day to honor Christ, therefore we can't dedicate a day to it.
This was a subpar debate for many reasons, but I think I can still evaluate it within its own framework.
ARGUMENTS
Pro points toward a lack of focus on creativity and innovation in favor of rote memorization and obedience. Con links examples of creativity in classrooms. Pro brings up that Con never addressed Common Core, and it remains that way.
Based on the definitions used in this debate, education doesn't strictly entail creativity and innovation, nor memorization and obedience. Neither side makes arguments about what it means for education to 'fail us' or how to evaluate that. Given this, the arguments made don't really ever actually address the topic, so I default to the Burden of Proof. Pro, by instigation, assumes BoP. Furthermore the argument of lack of creativity WAS countered.
Arguments to Con.
SOURCES
Con gives definitions and links articles. Given the constraints on character limits, I deem that this was an adequate integration into the arguments and made a significant effect on the debate overall
Sources to Con
CONDUCT
This isn't particularly important but Con complained several times about the character limit. This is annoying. It is your responsibility in accepting the debate to evaluate the debate parameters and make sure they are acceptable. If there is a problem, it should be addressed and fixed before you accept. This is like agreeing to fight someone with your hands tied behind your back then complaining that the fight isn't fair. You have to live with the constraints you give yourself.
Conduct to Pro
"by the choice of one side to miss at least 40% of the debate, the requirement [to consider arguments] ceases."
Concession.
Pro's only argument against theism (the rest criticized christianity specifically) was that no God has ever been seen or recorded. Con points out that religious texts often contain records of people seeing god, though his examples are again specific to christianity. He also poses the Kalam cosmological argument as a counter. Overall, Pro was countered and never rebutted any of Con's arguments.
Arguments to Con
Conduct tied since both sides forfeited multiple rounds.
"by the choice of one side to miss at least 40% of the debate, the requirement [to consider arguments] ceases."
Pro's arguments boil down to "I concede that gender roles are social constructs, but that's different from gender." Con shows that what Pro calls "gender roles" is the majority of what people mean by gender.
Arguments to Con
Con had to find sources for PRO's terrible definitions on top of his own.
Sources to Con.
I would have liked to see better defined conditions, and would be interested in more r/whowouldwin type content on the site, but all of that is irrelevant bc FORFEITURE on the part of Pro.
By making the positive claim, Pro assumes the BoP. He incorrectly asserts that Con must make an argument against or forfeit, but fails to provide any himself.
Point to Con
Stated Forfeiture
Full forfeit.
" by the choice of one side to miss at least 40% of the debate, the requirement [to consider arguments] ceases."
Full Forfeit by Con, though as Pro is banned this vote means little.
No arguments towards the claim were made on either side. Arguments tied.
Conduct points to Con for not completely forfeiting.
The forfeited round posted in the comments will not be considered. I will read it after my RFD.
The entire debate seems to rest on a major disagreement on the definition of "justice" between Pro and Con.
Pro insists that justice is the alleviation of suffering for parties affected by an unjust act, whether it be theft, assault, etc. Their main argument is that in the case of murder the wronged party, being dead, cannot receive justice because their suffering can no longer be alleviated.
Con never argues that the murder victim can have their suffering alleviated, instead setting up the conventional definitions of justice in his favor. Justice isn't just about correcting or ameliorating a wrong, but about punishing the wrongdoer. As a comparison to the death argument put forth by Pro, Con brings up the case of rape. The rape, like murder, cannot be undone, but justice can be served to the victim by punishing the assaulter. As such, justice isn't predicated on correcting the act, but punishing it.
Con's definitions are not directly contested by Pro, thought they do contend the assertion that justice isn't about alleviating suffering. He states "So you mean to tell me, civil rights activists weren't seeking justice in getting the relief in the brutality, dogs and hoses on folks." Although Con doesn't address this specific argument, it is covered by his other arguments comparing general violence to murder. When a protester is bit by a police dog or sprayed with a fire hose, their legal case seeking justice isn't about undoing those actions, but about holding the wrongdoers accountable for their actions and punishing them as appropriate.
Although Conduct isn't its own point here, Pro did forfeit a round.
Points to Con.
Greater than 40% forfeiture.
R1 had the clearest arguments in this debate, with a sharp descend into fallacy accusations and semantic arguments after that, so I will only be addressing points that refer back to relevant R1 arguments.
Pro's R1 rests on two main points. A1, A3, A4 and A5 can be consolidated to the first: that "evil" does not objectively exist/is subject. The second is that good/omnibenevolence cannot exist without evil, as explained in A2. Pro goes on in the "Crystallization" to state that good objectively exists and that evil does not. " God cannot partake in any sorts of evil or create any evil, as it doesn't exist." (despite the earlier statement saying that evil is necessary for good to exist.)
Con's argument starts with a variation on the traditional criticism of the omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent god: if there is a God, and he is omnibenevolent, then why does he let evil exist? In this case, Con argues that the existence of (gratuitous) evil disproves the existence of a god.
Con's second argument takes up the idea of necessary evil, evil which is "conducive to the best possible world." As Con's argument goes, Pro must take up the claim that "All the moral crimes we observe are conducive to the best possible world"
Rebuttals:
This first is the strongest counter Con makes in the entire debate. Given a world where an omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God exists, an objective morality defining good and evil as determined by God also exists, as seen in Christian theology, among others. This point is never addressed by Pro, except to agree that "an objective morality exists," in direct contradiction to the majority of the rest of his arguments before and after.
The second rebuttal states examples of good existing in the absence of evil. In R2's "Crystallization" Pro states "Con arguing that evil is necessary for goodness is unreasoned and never demonstrated by Con to be true." Here he attributes his own argument of the necessity of evil (as given in A2) to Con, and calls it unreasoned.
Next, Con argues that Pro must bite the bullet of every immoral action ever to take place as being necessary for the best possible world to exist, with examples such as rape and murder, but generally applying to all of the generally accepted as immoral acts.
Next, Con argues that the idea of evil being a result of human ignorance can equally apply in any direction to aspects and actions of God, which makes this argument just as effective at dismissing any other claims about God (Con does not give examples, but one can imagine such claims as omnibenevolence coming under this same argument.)
Argument points:
Pro makes the positive claim in this debate and therefore shoulders the majority of the BoP. Furthermore, he undermined his own arguments by both agreeing with his opponent and making claims counter to previous arguments several times. Con was also able to counter the argument of subjective evil and necessary evil, which constitute the majority of Pro's direct arguments. Points to Con.
As a ancillary note, all of the tangential arguments in later rounds, such as the aliens, the trilemma, and bachelors, detracted from the overall argument in my view, especially given how many there were. Analogy has its place in debate and can often make things clearer, but I actually felt my understanding of both Pro and Con's arguments DECREASING with each round, where the opposite should be true. There was potential for a much cleaner debate where the participants didn't spend half of the time talking past each other and making semantic arguments, and I would have enjoyed writing an RFD for that debate much more.
Concession.
It's seriously underrated how little people on this site admit to being wrong, and especially changing their mind. Pro deserves some credit for owning up to that. Conduct to Pro