Pro Round 1
Alas, I am unable to access Pro's Links.
But I will Google some about South Africa.
What I googled is at bottum of my vote, but percent of people voting does 'seem to be dropping.
And some people are arguing infrastructure problems with voting polls.
Though I am still unsure about my information, but Pro arguement of the difficulty of voting, 'still works a 'bit against them in this debate.
As voting percents might be increased by ease of access, rather than compulsory voting.
Still, Pro makes arguements of how voting keeps citizens engaged in goverment,
And argues it to be a a freedom and responsibility.
I think they make a fair point about keeping the public engaged,
But there are legal responsibilities and non-mandated responsibilities,
Non-mandated responsibilities can still have consequences if ignored.
But Pro 'wants the non-mandated responsibility of voting to 'be legally mandated.
They still need further argument for why it 'must be legally mandated.
Con Round 1
Compulsion 'is a but contrary to Freedom, I suppose,
But many if not 'all governments have Laws/Compulsion.
Expressed Opinion
Pro might require the people vote for available candidates, no abstaining.
But Con makes a point that people's opinion is still expressed in not voting.
One might argue though, that compulsory voting makes sure everyone had the 'chance to vote.
Less Representative Results
'Not if there is an abstain vote.
But Con has a point that someone who knows nothing voting for Canidate A, does not mean the know nothing Voter wanted Canidate A's policies or vision.
Impact Marginalized
A fair point, and why not every citizen is a lawmaker, we set some people aside to take the time.
I think Pro 'might dodge it by compensating people, or assuming that voting and info is made easier.
I don't think X should be mandatory, assumes that X should be mandatory with 'current circumstances, I think it can mean X should be mandatory 'and circumstances should change that X being mandatory works well.
Since it wasn't stated one way or the other, I think circumstances changing can be argued either way.
Less Democratic
By removing peoples freedom to not vote, or vote for no one.
Backwards Cause Effect
Interesting argument,
Though Pro could argue by example of depression,
Depressed people sometimes do not get sun, food, socialization,
And so get stuck in viscous cycle, while they may initially be depressed for other reasons,
A lack of Sun, food, socialization are also causes in depression.
People 'having to vote, 'could engage them, though I think Pro has a point that much of the reason they are not voting, is they are disengaged.
Con first 3 sources did not 'say much, 4th source did, but suggested various causes.
I don't consider them to be strong sources.
Yes source 1 'says that, but I can't 'access the article, someone can say 'anything, but I like there being a bit more proof by the sayer, more explanation.
Source 5 is a bit better, but again a lot of information is lacking,
I'm leaning slightly towards Con for sources, but I still don't consider them strong.
It just seems common sense that if you force someone to participate in X, 'some of those forced will look into it. Like parents who half watch their kids cartoons.
In something relevant to themselves, there would be even more engagement.
Source 6 has a lot more info, but is a bit difficult to chew and digest,
But because of Pro source issues, and lack of round 2, sources most likely going to Con.
Source 6 'does give me a new thought,
I can imagine 'every user on DART being forced to vote, and if RFV is required 'many would be disqualified.
If RFV not required, be a lot of bad RFVs, lot of Troll votes, I imagine.
Con makes a strong argument of the difficulty of forcing people to know, understand, or care.
Fantasy World
I'm not sure that voting 'can't be easy.
In some countries there is a Starbucks or two on every block,
Most people have identification,
People talk about crypto, surely devices 'can be put in many places, there are ATMs many places.
Con Brings up Argument of Poor Father and Work
Does a good job of arguing Pro making voting compulsory, would at least need many exceptions.
Though. . . One might take that as granted, such as saying everyone needs to wear shoes in a restaurant, well, one might not demand that of a person with no feet, or a foot swelling disease.
Still, Con makes a case, also with the sparse spread out rural population. Freedom argument.
Preemptively argues against mail in voting,
Again arguing the time sink.
Presumably they might care to choose to vote if the issues were important. But such goes back around to their argument of people not voting shows their views.
Voter thinking on Pro sources,
I 'did look up South Africa 2024 election though.
"Voter turnout has declined since the end of apartheid, when 86% of eligible voters turned out.[33] For this election, 27 million people were eligible to vote.[34] Fifty-five percent of them were women, while voter registration was highest among those aged between 30 and 39 years old.[35] Only 58% of the country's registered voters voted in the election."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_South_African_general_election
One can see the turnout lower over time.
https://www.electionguide.org/countries/id/198/
"The IEC has come in for severe criticism as voters had hours-long waits at some polling stations, mostly in urban centres. Understaffing, overwhelmed and undertrained officials, and glitchy scanners were cited as some of the most common problems. But, in a testimony to how important people deemed this election, voters waited patiently, some for as long as five hours, to cast their ballots. Others, no doubt, quit the queues. The IEC said that poor internet connections were to blame at many polling stations as poll workers could not use their Voter Management Devices to confirm voters and had to resort to manual verification. The commission insisted problems were limited to a minority of its 23,293 voting stations and said polling station would remain open after the 21:00 cut-off time provided voters were already in line."
https://www.oxfordeconomics.com/resource/south-africa-elections-2024-counting-underway-after-calm-voting-day/
Pass.
If the mods remove my vote, so be it, and it might encourage me to try harder when voting on future debates with other people.
While I suppose it might be annoying to have someone vote for the other person, or annoying if they give (In your view) bad RFD,
I don't think I vote bombed, I think I read the debate,
I found your comments hostile and unappreciative of my 'effort to vote,
And so I am disinclined to spend further time upon it.
I am not debating with you, no.
However, if I read an argument, I think is well that I should state why I think it is a good or bad argument.
More concisely, I considered Con to have better sources and arguments.
I 'could explain 'why I think that, but you seem to dislike that.
As far as I am aware, Vote Bombing is defined as,
Vote bombing means to vote biasedly or without proper justification. [1] Vote bombing occurs when a member casts what might be regarded as an unwarranted vote, usually indicated by that member giving an unsatisfactory reason for their decision to vote the way they did (e.g. "I agree with Pro." or "Con didn't refute Pro's case.")
https://ddo.fandom.com/wiki/Vote_bombing
I think I was 'explicit with stating 'why I voted,
I do not think I simply voted Con with the justification of "I agree with Con."
RFV 1/6
Title
Well, might depend how you define "divine" or "spiritual"
Description,
Might have been good to put definitions here.
Con Americandebater24 R1
Opening
"special significance"
Some might argue that people with PTSD and night terrors, nightmares, are spiritually sick.
Depends on how one defines spirit.
First Argument
The source doesn't say dreams are "nothing more than", But does say, "Dreams are stories and images that our minds create while we sleep."
It also says,
"There are several theories about why we dream."
"Possible explanations include"
"Much that remains unknown about dreams"
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/284378#_noHeaderPrefixedContent
Hm, does 'every dream need to have a divine or spiritual message?
It's not as though they 'couldn't, some people see all of life that way, just because humans don't pick up on it all, or don't view small dull parts as adding to it all, doesn't mean that they are not, to people who view it that way.
Second Argument
Source is okay.
Berean Literal Bible
"Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves." Matthew 7:15
That something can be manipulated by humans, does that prevent it from being used by the divine, or to show divine understanding?
(Personally I'm still an Atheist, just saying)
Third argument
Wikipedia says
"Anecdotal evidence, with a few safeguards, represents the bulk of evidence in court."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence
My thoughts
Despite my criticisms, I don't think Cons arguments are 'bad. But I think there might be room for Pro to make a case.
I think definitions might have been valuable to Con.
RFV 2/6
Pro tigerlord R1
Arguments
Identifies 'some dreams as divine/spiritual, and others not.
While I think their arguments would be convincing to one already a believer in the divine/spiritual aspect of dreams.
I think they will be less so to a person who takes a more materialistic/conceptual/metaphor/emergent property view of the divine/spiritual.
I expect later rounds might include arguments on when records/history is seen as fact or not.
Brings up rebuttals to Cons arguments,
Argues for personal experiences place in observation and conclusions in life.
Argues for historical records and outcomes.
My thoughts
I lean a bit towards Cons arguments.
While personal experiences 'might be true, I tend to discount them, as they 'might not be true.
The logical reasoning of Allah's control, 'requires the voter to think such true as well.
I think history is not always perfectly recorded, sometimes it is recorded after, or with mistaken perspective.
Con Americandebater24 R2
Argument 1
What 'would be sufficient evidence?
Logical statements and conclusions can have flaws, yeah.
Argument 2
Brings up the argument of Pros arguments presupposing their religion to be correct, might not convince people nonreligious or of other religions.
Argument 3
Con source does not quite say what they claim Divinity to be, looks to me.
I'm not sure that 'theoretically divine experience could not work side by side with modern science.
There 'are religious and spiritual scientists, I would think.
Brings up objections to Pros use of the Qur'an.
Rebuttals
Argues that some of Pros arguments require presupposition of religion being true.
Presents alternate explanations for Pros personal experience.
RFV 3/6
Pro tigerlord R2
Rebuttal 1
I think this is the type of debate that often 'happens between people of a more Materialistic bent, and people of a Religious bent.
They sometimes have 'very different views and presuppositions. So the debate becomes one between two systems, not the implications or uses of said systems.
Con 'has included sources where people have studied dreams, sources commonly recognized as scientific.
Rebuttal 2
I think it is true that science and academia, 'especially in the past,
Have a long history of being supported by religious institutions, and some directions people have taken science, were motivated by their love of their religion, and wanting to understand it more.
There 'is a difficulty though, in claiming science and religion to be the same,
Or in convincing people that religious books are science books.
'Especially if one is 'not religious.
Rebuttal 3
A person's skin being scratched, and their skin under the fingernails of a subject of homicide,
Vs someone who saw the individual killing the victim,
While I do not say that a witness holds 'no weight, I think the physical evidence would hold more.
Rebuttal 4
Hm, I don't think Con has brought up Dawkins,
But I don't think Con is wrong to use authorities as evidence to support their position.
Though such does not mean that individuals are 'wrong, or did not experience what they did,
But, the point of authorities is to have something one can turn to, as something recognized as fact by a group.
Pro himself used their religion as an authority.
Rebuttal 1
Con 'has used sources on people studying dreams and possible origins of them.
Having something verifiable 'helps voters lean to one side or the other.
Though some people have their experiences and might be leaned by less verifiable experiences, thoughts, and reasonings.
'Without those experiences, thoughts, and reasonings. One is left with the verifiable.
RFV 4/6
Rebuttal 1
I don't think Con was calling Pro a liar,
But seeing is believing, humans are fallible.
People who are Materialists, have the assumption of alternate explanations for the experiences of Spiritualists,
As Spiritualists, have the assumption of alternate explanations for the experiences of Materialists.
(I am just 'assuming Con is a Materialist in this debate though)
Rebuttal 2
Even if Con cannot 'find the Divine nature, if they can find a Materialistic explanation, it sems reasonable they should be satisfied with the Materialistic explanation.
Rebuttal 1
Logic is often a chain of thoughts, if even one link is Illogical, then the logic can become wrong, even if 99% of the rest was logical. I think.
Rebuttal 3
King Nebuchadnezzar, that some dreams come to pass, does not mean to the Materialist that the dream 'knew of the future. If I have a dream that a quarter is going to flip on heads and it 'does, that doesn't mean the dream was divinely inspired.
There are 'many dreams recorded, often vague, Oracles often vague. Leaves room for interpretation to be 'correct.
Gist of My Opponent’s Arguments
Con offers explanations, and cuts off what they see as unneeded explanation.
Religions can often be subjective.
If spirituality does not exist, then it cannot be the explanation.
The 'facts of religion, are often not the facts for people not 'of that religion, as Con has argued earlier.
Argument
Pro offers argument of Allah existing in a way that impacts the physical realm. While this 'does offer some explanation of divine/spiritual in the physical.
I think Con has an easier time by not 'needing said explanation for their argument.
I think Pros arguments could do well with people of the same presuppositions as Pro, but have trouble convincing people of different presuppositions.
Millions of testimonies,
The 'problem for Pro here, is that millions can be wrong, literally 'everyone in the world during various time periods can be wrong.
Not that it has 'no weight for consideration, but some people including myself, prefer explanations that explain it various ways that they were mistaken.
. . . Or that they were not 'wrong, but that some were not speaking literally.
Pro does offer 'possible explanation, and argues the limit of current science is not proof.
. . . It 'is true, that people can think something is impossible by their own limitations, when in truth it was possible, already in existence, or done.
But until said proof is shown, or shown as likely, many will not find the arguments of 'maybe it could exist, to be convincing.
Glancing down I see Pro and Con 'are both including videos,
WHYYYYY. Eh, I'll watch them.
RFV 5/6
Pro Video
1:25 Taking up arms,
Well, it 'can be dangerous to take up arms. It can become an all or nothing situation. Can be 'big consequences if you lose. 'And even if you win.
Violence, 'I think can often end up one's last resort, because one can be destroyed if one loses.
Even when one wins, members of one's own faction can 'again use violence and turn on you.
Infrastructure can also end up being destroyed.
3:00 Libraries being burned
Knowledge often isn't the primary loot people take before they burn, yeah.
I'm not well read enough to have a view on how seriously the military was viewed at various times in Islamic history.
8:14
Eh, I think one might see more Atheists in USA than Europe, due to there being more people in USA who view Bible literally. I could be mistaken though.
End
I 'do find it interesting to hear the viewpoints of people of other places and cultures.
Not quite how 'I see it myself. 'Lot to unpack though.
Con Americandebater24 R3 Video
Had sources.
Argues opponent used Authority of their religious book themself.
2:53 Eh, I can conceive of religion helping one in a biology class, though it would be more about the religions commentary of human effort, than any biological claims religions may or may not make.
3:44 Argues against personal claims being placed over proof.
4:21 Notes Pros use of 3rd party authority.
4:58 Notes flaws that can occur when using logic.
6:00 I'm not sure the studies say that God 'wasn't involved. But they 'do offer explanations that don't mention God, I think.
7:20 I'm not really keeping a count or knowledge of 'when, but you guys have 'both been a little aggressive. Not 'outright insulting, but 'little 'tiny bits. 'Seems to me.
9:10 Eh, I 'really don't care to comb over the debate again for conduct.
Pro tigerlord R3
Less space.
You know, 'both of you, the word/character limit in debates exists for a reason, but eh, if you both don't mind bypassing it.
I don't 'think it is 'wrong to talk to the voter in a debate, though I imagine there can be Pros 'and Cons to said tactic.
Fair to point out that it can be done to create a connection, but I don't think such is 'necessarily wrong myself.
I am of the position that emotion holds a place in debates, though a lot of people talk about 'just using logic in debates, I think such people ignore the real life application of debates.
Overemphasis on Scientific Empiricism, will appeal to some people more than others,
Will appeal to some people less than others.
For people big on science, it often 'can be a debate between religion and science,
Doesn't 'have to be, but often way it turns out,
You 'both agreed to this debate and your opponents it sounded to me when reading.
RFV 6/6
Undermining the Use of Religious Evidence
Is a fair point to make, and a consistent theme that Con has argued.
People of different beliefs, will often lack the presuppositions required to take the claims of different beliefs at face value. I think.
. . . Though one 'can argue science is not a monolith, not 'all groups believe in the same scientific claims.
Key point2
I'm not so sure about Pros claims, sources would be valuable to Pro.
Key point 3
It's too late to argue who the burden of proof rests on, (Last round)
And there are various arguments on how to apply the BoP.
I've been applying it equally to both, since it wasn't mentioned.
Pro makes decent argument about the 'application of dreams mattering more than whether the dreams are physical.
However, In my view Con has been arguing effectively against people applying only to Pros religion as well as the existence of Divine or Spiritual argued by Pro.
Though it is possible that a person possessing many of Pros views would be more convinced by Pro than myself.
Hobson and various other sciences.
The 'problem is that Pro and Con have been using the terms Divine and Spiritual, in a way I would classify as 'more than psychological/human culture/Emotion/Will/So On.
Another problem, is this all 'really feels like a final round rush, which generally is frowned upon in debates I think.
It 'is offering a lot of sources claiming the limits of science regarding dreams and consciousness.
It is also difficult to digest easily.
"I still apologize to my opponent if anything let him feel disrespectful and I will try my best to be more in up coming debates with anyone."
I think that is a nice gesture.
RFV End Thoughts
I'm not sure of DARTs stance on final round arguments.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6503-debate-protocol-last-round-new-argument
But I'm still taking the view that Cons arguments were more consistent, more simple throughout debate.
While many of Pros were last round additions.
While Con added many sources and arguments of others in the final round,
I view it more as quantity in application, than quality.
I view Cons sources of studies as more objective than the Quran.
It is possible were I a Muslim I would hold the Quran as a good source, but I am not, and do not.
I thought Pro and Con both have interesting perspectives.
But my vote in arguments and sources goes to Pro
Conduct tie.
Legibility tie, though I might lean towards Con due to structure, I found both understandable.
I think the sites bones are still good, myself.
Doesn't have a massive bot problem like Debate.org had towards it's end.
And I like the 'functions of this site well enough,
A problem with pure forums for me, such as Reddit, is it's easy for someone to post a 'single comment and end the conversation there.
Debate setup on this site 'ideally forces a few rounds of well thought out answers and responses to one's own arguments.
RFV 1
Title
Eh, I think it's always 'an issue, as I think different parties have different effects on American values. Maybe not 'major issue though.
Description
Well, some state regulations after Roe vs Wade was overturned in 2022, 'did piss some people off.
lacr3000 R1
Yeah, it's at state now, but that doesn't make everyone happy, and being president can allow a great influence on policy and mechanisms of government. Such as Judges.
Pros argues that neither candidate would be 'likely to effect 'immediate huge effect on abortion in either direction.
KMA0017 R1
Brings up the argument I'd expect, of the influence of the president.
Though it 'is fair to point out that lacr3000 titled debate "major issue", so Pro still has room to argue their side.
Brings up the Supreme Court.
Has sources, to back claims of Presidential effects, such as Supreme Court.
RFV 2
lacr3000 R2
Pro argues other policies and factors might be more major than abortion.
Argues Trump has achieved his goal.
Pro might also do well to argue that abortions 'current state at state level is ideal. Though that might be a hard sell, to extremists on either side who want it 'all Federally 'their way.
Argues for the value of the filibuster, that it 'can still be bypassed by either major party. But still plays a part in keeping legislation moderate on 'both sides.
Pro includes sources, to solidify their claims.
I think Pro is doing well, but might need to state clearly and sell why the 'importance of these issues other than abortion, that should be the 'major issues.
I suppose economy, war, 'seem self evident, but some people are one issue voters, or discount other issues.
KMA0017 R2
Con makes good arguments on how abortion can matter to people, and how people often care about what 'could happen.
Though one might argue people should care less about 'could, and care more about probability.
Argues the importance of presidency in appointing judges.
I'm not yet convinced by Cons arguments against the Filibuster, both parties seem to get about 50 50 in America. It's not as though only 1 percent of people or officials are Republicans and they are blocking an 'enormous majority.
I think Con is doing well, but I think they need to speak more on 'why Abortion would be a 'major issue.
RFV 3
lacr3000 R3
Pro argues probability should matter more than could.
An issue I'm also thinking on is people 'do care about issues that effect them 'personally, 'deeply often. X people care about X policies. Even if Y policy effects 'everyone, X people often fix on the X issue.
But as Pro says, mainstream issues 'still personally effect people.
I suppose economy still effects someone's personal wallet,
War might effect someone's life, or life of a loved one.
I think Pro is disarming the 'could well,
But some people aren't 'happy with what 'is currently, and want more. As Con argues elsewhere, President effects gears of government, such as the Judges, change doesn't even need to happen during their presidency, just placing a few gears is 'bad to some people's minds.
It becomes less will it happen in a year, and will it happen in 10 or 20.
Pro argues Trump has fulfilled his goals,
But I find Cons arguments persuasive, of how 'much and long a President can effect policy.
I think Con argues well and disarms Pros filibuster arguments here,
Pointing out necessary numbers and previous acts passed, that Pro argued would have been prevented by the filibuster.
Pro argues against Cons fire arguments well,
Fire argument is flawed anyway, since 'war seems more a fire, and immediate danger, than abortion. . . Though 'depends maybe, many women might find abortion an immediate danger, but Pro has their argument of probability. And existence of Blue states.
KMA0017 R3
I don't think Pro is moving the goalposts myself.
Hm, Con 'inching towards misconduct by words such as "reeks of prescriptive arrogance"
I'm not dinging them, just saying that such words sometimes lead to friction in a debate, and bad conduct on both sides sometimes.
Still, Pro makes good argument of Presidents effects on the gears of government.
I'm not convinced Trump will take or be able to take further action, but am still open to such argument.
There's that language again "Revisionist" just has a negative connotation, Con is of course free to phrase their argument as they like, I just think it might add friction.
Ah, and "quaint" such words are insulting of the other person's ability.
Sure I'm for people having thick skin, but one of parts judged in debates is still conduct, and sometimes a person is just looking for 'small parts that tilt a debate one way or another when voting.
I'm not convinced by Cons arguments of the filibuster as a minority tool, Republican or Democrat, neither is a 'minority in America I think, not like the Green Party or Anti Alcohol Party.
Con makes the personal to some people argument, a fair argument.
RFV 4
lacr3000 R4
Pro makes a point about if a person values another policy more, they should not be moved by Abortion. They do it by listing 'several policies against 'one though.
I think Pro would do better by showing what 'makes something a major issue.
Is abortion a major issue outweighed by several other major issues? It would 'still be a major issue then.
I don't think Pro argues against the effect of the President well, indirect, at times yes. Small, I am doubtful.
Pro argues well of 'immediate effect, perhaps the 'immediate threat of war, or policies the President can 'immediately and directly pass 'should be a greater concern, than their indirect influence on future policy.
I find Pro convincing, and they do a good job on showing the immediate relevance of various issues, 'but. . . People can be very. . . 'valued, hold to their values strongly even in the face of other issues, they see those other issues as mattering less than their own principles and values.
Argues the Republicans as a majority, and value of the filibuster.
I'm leaning towards a tie, 'possibly voting Pro.
KMA0017 R4
I 'still don't think Pro moved the goalposts,
Pro is right that the claim of the debate is that abortion should not be a 'major issue.
But they have done a decent job of arguing against it as an 'immediate problem.
Though Pro 'does of course have decent arguments of Presidential effect on gears and time, as well as some individuals valuing Abortion as an issue.
I don't think Con is 'trying to be insulting.
"laughably shortsighted" "pretending"
I'm not convinced by their 'bet argument,
Everything in life is a gamble, but some outcomes are far more expected than others.
"You accuse me" "presumptuous tone."
I think you're the one making this personal Con.
Con argues the impact of Supreme Court.
Which 'is a fair argument, but I find Pros arguments of 'immediate concerns fairly decent.
I'm leaning towards a tie.
Con argues Trumps personality and likelihood of him appealing to his base by at least affording towards further abortion policies.
Decent argument.
Ehh, Con seems to have a strong bias for the Democrats, which isn't 'bad, but it has them come off as less objective than Pro in this debate.
I don't think being a Republican is 'bad either.
Con has a point on the 'effect of Roe being overturned, it 'did change many people's lives and actions in response.
Con makes decent argument on the slow but substantial effects of presidential power.
I'm not as convinced by their argument of how voters 'should think.
Just because one 'understands why a person thinks something, doesn't mean a person isn't thinking wrong.
Not that I'm saying Abortion is right or wrong in this debate.
RFV 5
lacr3000 R5
I think both sides have done great in this debate,
I might only nitpick with some of Cons language.
Eh, just because something doesn't have a 'direct impact, doesn't mean one should not be concerned about it's indirect impact.
The filibuster felt a bit of a sidebar in the debate to me, though of course it was addressing 'ability to enact immediate direct change.
I think Pro does well in arguing ad hominem by Con,
But I'm still not dinging anyone for conduct, though it does help Pro some in argument, by arguing they are addressing the arguments of people, not requiring people to gain Pros blessing.
Eh, I think politicians are often liars, 'especially Trump,
I think Con has decent argument on Trump making 'some kind of moves to appeal to his supporters by 'something related to abortion.
KMA0017 R5
Con makes point again of presidents vast indirect influence.
Con 'did make argument earlier of how abortion can be linked to other policies, such as healthcare or economics. Though I think they are 'adding arguments a bit here, in the 'last round, that Pro is no longer able to respond to.
I am not convinced by Cons arguments of the filibuster, I am more convinced by Pro, but consider it a bit of a sidebar.
Again Con 'did make arguments of how overturning Roe effected people, but they are also 'adding arguments in the last round that Pro can no longer respond to.
Final thoughts
I think both won out on different arguments in the debate, that left me thinking tie.
Pro makes good arguments on other policies being important, on a lack of immediate power.
Con makes god arguments on the impact and length of indirect power, as well as people valuing what they will value.
I also think Cons arguments of the immediate impact of Roe being overturned was excellent, but think they were a bit late in explicit stating of it.
Sources, extensive on both sides.
Legibility equal.
Conduct equal, I don't think either was outright insulting towards one another.
Sorry if my arguments were not what you were looking for.
It was not my intent to be difficult.
Other two arguments I considered were, that if the afterlife doesn't exist then sin 'very much material.
If God does exist, then it is objectively tied to their standards.
Looks 'definitely matter to me. I'm shallow that way.
Though I'm not interested in pursuing romance myself. Would require too much commitment.
Looks I assume generally matter to most other people.
At least to a degree.
While I think someone 'can love and have a relationship with someone who is great, that doesn't mean that looks were not a factor. That person lacking looks was just awesome in other ways that mattered more than the lack of looks.
Given a choice between two people who look about the same, or pass some threshold of minimum looks, then factors other than looks are weighed.
I don't think looks always matter to some people,
But I think they often matter to many people.
And that's just natural looks,
How a person takes care of themself also matter, though I suppose we can ignore the 'implications of their actions in this specific topic.
Being filthy, is usually a turn off for people.
. . .
Again, I think looks 'can matter less, with some individuals being awesome in other ways, or the chooser having different qualities in a person they value.
But for most people, I think it's something they factor, even if it factors less strongly than other considerations.
Description
Definition of slavery 'might be nice, but maybe Pro intends to argue the existence of various 'Slaveries, that they argue people do not consider evil.
Pro Round 1
What is and is not Freedom or Slavery, looks to be a push here in round 1.
Arguments about various aspects of life such as jobs being slavery.
I'm not sure imprisoning people counts as slavery.
Though when people force them to labor and the imprisoner profit from said labor, it leans towards slavery.
Argues context should be taken into account for each situation of slavery.
Argues reparations and I'd assume taxes as slavery.
Some people see Freedom as an absolute good, situations that people decide Slavery is necessary, is sometimes seen as Necessary or Lesser Evil, but not 'Good. I think.
Slavery often seen as more of a 'forceful situation, than Pro suggests. But Pros point is probably the coercion.
Con Round 1
I don't disagree with that definition of Slavery, but I imagine Pro will argue what 'is having to do what another tells you and having no Freedom?
Basic Utilitarian morality makes me nervous, I don't want to be the one sacrificed for the greater good.
Morally Neutral, not bad, but I think Pro means slavery can be good or bad, depending on context, not that it has no effect good or bad.
I see what Con is saying by Slavery itself still being bad if it cures kids of cancer, but their definition of Moral, included,
"moral if it results in more joy than pain"
Action or Result, the defining characteristic of a policy?
My Thoughts Round 1
Still early, debate being defined, fair arguments on both sides.
Pro Round 2
Pro points out sentence they used in round 1 to define slavery,
I think it could have been a bit more clear Pro was using such as their definition, but I do see it now.
Pro argues Slavery not inherently bad, nor Freedom inherently Good.
Argues people have their Freedoms limited. I assume examples of such would be laws of society or children having limited Freedom, but these are my examples, not Pros. Additionally one might argue that children are less free by their circumstance until they have learned and grown up under parental guidance. But they are less free by their nature, not the parental constraints. But of course people use the word 'Free to speak even of animals such as chickens not being Free to explore beyond the walls of a farm. Problem pops up of defining Freedom (For me).
Pro argues happiness does not make something good.
Pro argues Desire isn't everything. I can see direction Pro is coming from, but then should they not offer some definition or example of Good themselves then?
Pro defines Slavery as,
"Slavery though which is obligation to something, to do with that something you can do no otherwise is neither good or bad ."
I'm not sure that's a 'great definition of Slavery myself, I also find it a bit difficult to parse. A 'problem for Pro though, is that they did not use that definition of Slavery in the description of this debate. Which leaves door open for Con to argue their own definition of slavery.
Still,
By Pros definition, I suppose people in prison would be enslaved to the action of being in prison.
Pro argues Context.
Con Round 2
Eh, one can 'assume Pro is arguing various Ends are Good, such as serial killers being enslaved to prison, results in less dead people.
Though Con 'has brought up the argument that the 'Action itself is still bad.
Eh, some people like the action of work, and will work under an employer, so they have something to do.
Of course, most people don't see jobs as slavery, but some do. Also lot of people don't 'want to work, and are forced unwillingly by circumstance.
I think Pro would be better off insisting their own definitions have equal or greater weight than Pros, by common peoples general use and understanding of the term slavery.
My Thoughts Round 2
Still early, debate being defined, fair arguments on both sides.
I think 'slight edge to Pro, due to their argument of Ends,
It is a bit like saying a sword is not Good or Evil, only the End is preforms.
Course a sword is usually designed for killing people, which is Bad, unless one is killing bad people, then it's Good, except killing anyone even bad people is a bit Bad. Actions vs Ends.
Pro Round 3
I think it would be 'better if Pro defined what 'made something Good or Bad.
But one can argue that the Good and Bad don't matter, what matters is that Slavery is being argued to be a Neutral hammer.
. . . Though I still think defining Good and Bad helps one define Neutral.
Eh, people usually have something in 'mind when they describe an action or item.
Con Round 3
I am reminded of the Story of the Chinese Farmer who says maybe.
Guns don't kill people.
Slavery 'is an action though, someone is being enslaved,
Maybe a gun isn't evil, but shooting someone with a gun is often seen as evil.
Slavery cannot rest by itself, it is tied to action, the action of taking away Freedom as Con argues.
Of course Pro argues not all Freedom is good.
Con argues willing slavery would not be slavery.
Con Definition of Slavery, "The condition of not only being able to do what another specific person tells you to do, and having no freedom"
Pro definition of Slavery, "obligation to something, to do with that something you can do no otherwise is neither good or bad ."
Personally I think 'both the definitions read stilted, but by both definitions I 'think a person could 'enter slavery willingly. Some slaveries had exit options, where you could buy your Freedom I think, course lot of times people remove such an option.
So far I think Cons strongest argument is Slavery being a lesser evil.
Though there might still be flaws with that.
Pro agues Context, but I wonder what Pro 'imagines Con could have argued, if they do not accept their lesser evil argument.
Eh, it 'might still be bad to imprison someone, even if they are a killer,
But people I think would commonly say you preformed a good action and end.
Though I 'do appreciate Cons argument of the Action being an Evil.
Pro Round 4
Pro argues Context, and argues not everyone wants Freedom.
Con Round 4
Hm, should one look at definition of Slavery from Consequence or Deontological?
'Can Pro say something is Neutral without Defining Good and Evil?
Pro argues common sense for calling something Good or Evil.
Con argues willing Slavery is no longer Slavery, they may have a point, but this is difficulty of definition not being clearly defined before start of debate.
What Slavery 'is, becomes part of the debate.
Con Definition of Slavery, "The condition of not only being able to do what another specific person tells you to do, and having no freedom"
Does not include whether a Slave 'wants or wants 'not to do what the Slaver wants.
Reason for Vote
Sources, Conduct, Legibility all Neutral for obvious reasons.
I think Con argued well, but I think they tripped up a few times,
I think Pro argued well by keeping to their Context argument, though I think that's a bit cheap, wouldn't such make many or all Xs Neutral? Why not just have a debate that all Xs are neutral until Context is applied.
. . .
Con makes Deontological Argument,
Pro makes Consequence Argument.
. . . But I think Pro does a better job at chipping away at Cons Deontological Argument, by arguing for willing Slavery,
I would have needed Con to better argue and prove their definition of Slavery to always be unwilling to make this a tie or Con Vote.
So my Vote goes to Pro.
I 'might, but the possibility for failure and torture being high,
I'd might be tempted to save it for myself,
Hopefully I'll never have to know what I would decide.
Well, ChatGPT doesn't seem conscious to me, yet.
Maybe when they attach a brain organoid to one,
Though I suppose one might argue that brain organoids are not artificial.
If I critisize either side, it is not because I think I could do better, it's just my surface thoughts.
Reason for Vote Part 1
R1 Moozer325
My thoughts on Pro R1
I think Pro brings up fair questions that bother people on the existence of God.
I don't think people are unable to offer excuses or possibilities, but. . . Such offerings work better on people who identify God in certain ways or have faith.
Someone spiritually deaf or blind, could not be convinced by such, I'd think.
And even those who supposedly have the ears and eyes for it, how much do they 'truly see, 'truly hear?
Though perhaps it is enough to know 'something is there, to have a 'direction of what one should value, how one should act.
I'm still an Atheist though.
Anyway, I think Pro's round 1 would be considered decent enough arguments by most people.
Religious people often believe in an afterlife, or a reoccurrence.
Is a human lifespan that long compared to X? I say X as I don't know what an afterlife 'would be.
For reoccurrence, doesn't some version of Hinduism believe in Brahman as a God, something or other about everything being one. And people reincarnating trying to be better people each time, learning lessons, but also there's other people who are also them in a sense also trying. Just the nature of existence to have evil.
. . . Though you define God as
"God: a perfectly good, omnipotent and omniscient being that created the universe."
What does omnipotent 'mean?
People often don't mean the ability to make 1+1=3,
One could argue that God is limited by logic, while still being omnipotent.
For the Christian side though, I've always liked Job.
Reminds me of the Parable of the Invisible Gardener.
But such an argument is based on itself, and could be flipped to there being a Gardener, and yet the Atheist insisting every action is a mirage.
'Pro's ideal God, would behave as they want,
Yet my thoughts again go to Job.
'Is one more likely to have a divine visit in a different country?
If you have proof of even one divine visit, wouldn't such prove God?
If one has a more 'Deist view of God, whether a Deist God that 'has appeared or one that hasn't. Wouldn't such Deists be able to see God even in Atheist countries?
Who is to say what a divine visit 'is?
Do we 'know God is passive?
If God has some value or circumstance of the World, some self imposed rule on how they should act, does this mean they are not Omnipotent?
If I make a rule to myself not to stab random strangers in the street, it would not be true that I am incapable of stabbing random strangers in the street.
R1 Con
I thought the Socratic method was open ended questions that force the opponent to defeat themself?
I'd argue Con makes 'statements and assumptions a fair bit here.
I'm also doubtful that we are not caged into nature ourselves.
Some believers in God have nonstandard ideas of Free Will, see Calvinists.
"God doesn't make the world this way. We do.” - Rorsach
Though people disagree on 'whether God 'does or doesn't.
Hands on, people still argue God is Good or Bad,
Hands off, people still argue God is Good or Bad.
My mind returns to the Invisible Gardener,
What do we define as God, and how much can we conclude of objects that we cannot 'see.
Should it have been more likely that no X exists, earlier in history, before we could 'show them through a microscope?
Or because their definition years later would be slightly different?
Sometimes objects, laws, and people are identified peripherally, through logical necessity.
What makes something more or less likely?
(Thoughts here my own, not Cons)
My thoughts on Con R1
Con gives assertions on what God is, and seems to be identifying God as Truth?
Which I suppose is a bit of problem of Pros debate, though they 'did give a definition of God, it might be a bit broad.
Hm, is Con identifying God as a being?
While Con says what something 'is, Con doesn't say why such would exist, or what proof there is of such an existence.
R2 Moozer325
Are humans evil for creating new humans to live?
Or animals that we eat?
What did/does existence require to fulfill God's purpose?
Begging the question on my part, I suppose.
I wonder at how well a person would emphasize without pain?
One sees AI sometimes brutalized in fiction, as a necessity of sentience, but eh.
. . . There is more than physical pain I suppose, emotional pain for instance. . . Hm, if humans removed all pain from all organisms on Earth, would such 'also have been part of Gods plan?
But then, I don't think Pro 'required God to have a plan, just to be
"perfectly good, omnipotent and omniscient being that created the universe."
Which doesn't 'require plans really.
Still whether this theoretical God is hands on or not, it's not an either or. Can be a spectrum.
Does God need be responsible for every minutia?
Different Theists have different answers I'd think.
Omniquantism
http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff1400/fc01386.htm
Goes on for a few comics on the subject.
Pro R2 Concluding thoughts
"I acknowledge that the primary burden of proof rests with me. I must have sufficient evidence to prove that it is more likely God does not exist, and Con must either have sufficient evidence to prove that it is more likely that God does exist, or demonstrate that I have not provided enough evidence to support my side." - Pro R1
Hm, leaning towards Pro, but something feels off about debate.
R2 Con
Sub Gods?
Why are we Sub Gods?
I assume because of Con earlier arguments about our 'seemingly greater control other environment than other organisms on Earth.
Con seems to be taking hands off God approach.
And a bit Pantheist God approach?
Or do they maintain God is a person?
Okay, Con suggests that God exists separate of manmade religions,
But why does such prove God needs to exist?
"Con must either have sufficient evidence to prove that it is more likely that God does exist, or demonstrate that I have not provided enough evidence to support my side." - Pro R1
Hm, "or demonstrate that I have not provided enough evidence to support my side." is probably the one I'll try to factor at the end.
R3 Pro
One could argue we have pain and sorrow as training wheels.
Or that feeling happy all the time isn't everything.
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/n5TqCuizyJDfAPjkr/the-baby-eating-aliens-1-8
I'm again reminded of Job.
But admit to many such can come off as God works in mysterious ways, and that such an argument can not be satisfying to people.
Hm, 'has Pro proved God cannot exist?
Big part of their argument is identifying God as all loving, and arguing if God loved us they would do more.
One can rebut that God may be all powerful, but what does all powerful 'mean?
1+1=3?
If it means something less, then there can be reasons for our pain, like a parent's action or nonaction towards child in pain, necessary experience or part of existence. Lot of religious people believe in an after,
With how long some people have been dead, has their lives ended 'there? Never learning? Never experiencing? Never being something next or more?
(I'm still a materialist)
'Does Cons counterarguments hold up?
Con is not so much proving God exists to me, so much as arguing against Cons reasons for God not existing.
Well, Pro addressed that in this round, arguing it 'does have something to do with God, depends on Cons next round arguments.
R3 Con
Currently leaning towards Pro,
Socratic method might be a bad method when there are limited rounds in a debate.
It 'also can be flawed when you assume the opponent will give you the answer you want.
R4 Pro
New International Version
And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
https://biblehub.com/hebrews/11-6.htm
New International Version
This is why I speak to them in parables: “Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand.
https://biblehub.com/matthew/13-13.htm
Course it seems probable that 'some people would believe if they saw, or understand what they hear.
But maybe they wouldn't see or hear what was 'important.
Perhaps there is something in our uncertainty, yet wanting the right of existence.
"He [God] wants them to learn to walk and must therefore take away His hand; and if only the will to walk is really there He is pleased even with their stumbles. Do not be deceived, Wormwood. Our cause is never more in danger, than when a human, no longer desiring, but intending, to do our Enemy's will, looks round upon a universe from which every trace of Him seems to have vanished, and asks why he has been forsaken, and still obeys."
— The Screwtape Letters, letter VIII, C. S. Lewis
Serenity (2005)
"A world without sin."
Do you believe in a God that worked through evolution?
R4 Con
I'd say goes a bit off topic, even if it's positive about humans trying their best and doing right in the world.
Debate Conclusions
Pro has a specific idea of God they argue against, and assume a great amount of freedom by said God.
Con asserts God is a bunch of good stuff, and that humans are responsible for evil.
Pro argues God cannot be separate from human actions.
Pro argues why all the different ideas of religion, why does God not more obviously act and speak.
Con argues we all find God differently, and that they are something to find.
Arguments-wise, I don't think Pro was 'so great,
But they 'seemed more on topic and defining of what they meant by God.
Using You instead of U or Are instead of R,
Helps with legibility, Legibility to Pro.
Legibility 'matters for debates, as it better helps people read and understand your arguments,
So I'm also voting arguments to Pro,
Though 'something feels off about Pros arguments and definitions.
Well, I'm pretty willful about living myself,
Even in theoretical circumstances.
But if I crashed on a desert island, and saw several other of my shipmates grilled alive over an open fire before being eaten alive (Just cooked a bit) by cannibals,
Then the cannibals are gesturing at me and the fire, and I happened to have a gun hidden, with one bullet,
Suicide 'might be tempting then.
@NoOneInParticular
For stealing of physical objects, does the punishment based based on how expensive the object you steal is?
One could steal an entire library of digital books,
Yet, it seems worse to steal a library of physical books.
. . . Since the digital books are 'copied, and the digital library is not deprived of it's books.
Public libraries are generally already free for the public though, they have to buy a copy I suppose.
But I'm rambling.
Title and Description
Ultimate at what?
System for general use in all avenues?
Generally best system for Economics?
What are you defining Capitalism 'as?
Right this second, lacking a definition, I'll go with
"an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market."
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism#h1
befairbruh R1
Might be defining capitalism as
"The capitalist concept is the creation of wealth from existing wealth."
Which I 'suppose, one can use to argue one see's such an activity in many species, ants collecting resources, or birds collecting twigs. The acquirement of resources/wealth.
I'm not sure a 'single person on an island could be capitalist though.
Could they be capitalist if there was not another human, but an animal, that they gave food in exchange for the animal doing something?
Such as when a dog guards sheep, or a pig gets slaughtered?
Seems a bit odd, ge- (Well, these are 'my thoughts, not Pros)
I'm not sold on the brain example, to me it feels like saying the demand for free movement causes water to move from place to place when opportunity for movement is presented, such as a hole in a water bottle, therefore water is a capitalist.
Yeah I know Pro is talking about Capitalism 'Market 'Laws, which is different than just saying Capitalism.
. . . It's 'not that I disagree with using Capitalism as a lens, it just feels a bit forced to argue that 'everyone should see through said lens, or that various systems should be called capitalistic.
Cells in the body interact and have different paths, connect with one another, I admit.
Should I see,
"everything in nature is also a competition"
To mean that Pro is also defining Capitalism as competition?
Pro again uses "a form of capitalism where goods are created from existing ones."
I'm just thinking on how to define Capitalism for this debate, which 'maybe should be common sense, but I'm slow sometimes.
Shadowcritique R1
I think Pro is saying one sees the existence of wealth and trade can be seen in many avenues of existence. I think they use the cow and human examples as baseline, before expanding the concept to other avenues.
Which Oxford Dictionary
"Thank you for visiting Oxford English Dictionary
To continue reading, please sign in below or purchase a subscription. After purchasing, please sign in below to access the content."
https://www.oed.com/dictionary/capitalism_n2?tab=meaning_and_use
Nooo! I hate having to sign into every (Redacted) website to use their (Redacted) services!
Well, anyway,
Con seems to be defining Capitalism as,
"capitalism is an economic system rooted in competition, it is the act of letting the market rule economy, where everyone can do as they please with the recourses they have."
I don't find the argument that nature is focused on survival, convincing.
Birds can collect shiny objects, cats sometimes play with then kill animals even if not hungry, extend their 'territory for reasons of comfort.
A main focus of capitalism 'is often survival, though it can be used more recreationally.
While I suppose nature 'is a community,
I'm not so sure about equality,
Else would one call some rich billionaire a Communist, just because he's going to die someday?
Capitalists 'can crush other people just for being competition, but so can animals,
Territory fights,
Also a bear might eat the bee honey.
Common ownership of the body, is an interesting view for the body, by Con.
Con argues the limits of Freedom.
Round1 Thoughts
I'm still not sure if Pro is arguing one can 'see Capitalism in everything, or if one should try to 'be Capitalistic in more systems.
I can a bit go either way so far, One can see degrees of Capitalism or Communism in various systems perhaps.
Though one might argue BoP is on Pro
befairbruh R2
Continuing with their definition of capitalism as,
"the use of one resource leads to the obtention of a new one"
This could be bad for Con, as I don't recall them defining or arguing against Pros definition of capitalism,
It 'wouldn't be so bad for Con though maybe, if they had posted a round 2.
Though one can argue they argued against Pros definition of Capitalism in round 1 by disagreeing on how Pro 'applied their definition.
I don't quite agree with defining Capitalism as the transformation/use of energy for various purposes and/or more wealth/energy.
One sees another possible definition of Capitalism by Pro,
"nature is survival of the fittest so is a free economy market."
Pro makes various comparisons of how they see Capitalism in nature.
Pro argue Capitalism results in better overall situation, though I'm not convinced that humans couldn't control an ecosystem better than leaving animals and plants to themselves.
We usually want something 'specific out of nature,
And while nature may fall into niches and cycles, I don't think there's any 'Objective specific 'Good Cycle.
. . . I think back to Con argument about outside action, medicine for humans acting on their own bodies.
Which I can imagine Pro as arguing to be Capitalism again, because of humans using resources and their body as a resources, to increase resources.
An argument I am not convinced by, one can apply lenses over various situations, I think that Pro is using Capitalism too broadly defined.
But again, it's a problem for Con that they did not post a round 2.
I also think Pros,
Your Freedom to swing your fist, stops before it hits my face, definition of Freedom,
A bit of a cheat, cheap cop out.
It's not as though wolves don't eat the Elk.
Yes, Pro did not use the fist example 'exactly.
Shadowcritique R2
Missed, and missed opportunities for rebuttals or strengthening own argument.
My concluding thoughts.
I think Pro was better able to push their definition of Capitalism than Con was able to push their definition of Communism.
If Con had been around for round 2, maybe they could have hit harder against Pros definitions of Capitalism.
Pro used their time to further define Capitalism as a concept rather than pure human to human trade and control of private goods.
I'm not 'convinced by Pro,
But I think they won the debate by their definition pushing, with not 'enough pushback by Con.
Missing Round 2 hurt Con.
Both sides legible.
Conduct would go to Pro by Con missing a round.
Sources, Tie, neither 'quite used them.
Wel, my vote to Pro then.
RFV Part 1
Title and Description,
I think Abortion is vaguely defined here.
WellThatsIntellectual R1
0. Abortion 'does have ties to bodily autonomy, personal freedom, and healthcare,
But I 'really think you should have defined and set the limits of what you mean by abortion in the description 'or round 1. . . But you 'do state what 'you mean by abortion in comment 4 of debate, I 'suppose.
1. I'm not sure bodily autonomy 'is non-negotiable. We've had the draft before in America (Not that I am saying I agree or disagree with the draft)
I can imagine people forcing another person to let them on their boat, if the first people's boat sinks. Good Samaritan laws (Not that I am saying I agree or disagree with such)
Other examples I imagine.
2. People 'do argue various cases medically warrant abortion.
3. Orphanages 'do exist as an option. Not that such worked out too well for Nicolae Ceaușescu and Romania, but one could argue particulars.
But Question is often when is a human life a human life.
4. Eh, some Dad's don't 'want a kid either, don't want the bills or obligation. Though of course 'does effect a woman more. But that's biology, war often going to effect men more, but that's biology.
South was economically hurt by not having slaves and didn't have the North's infrastructure. Doesn't mean they 'should have slaves. As one might argue women being worse off doesn't mean they 'should abort an unborn.
5. True, it's a mental and physical drain. I'm reminded of the South Park Episode with the 'really late term abortion Cartman's mom considered, eight years a bit late.
But of course Pro 'does say in comments 'when they think an abortion should be done.
But for some Pro Life people, a life is a life.
6. While there 'is an argument for regulating bad behaviors, some people still hold to a dislike of normalizing said action, dislike participating in said action, or practice Deontological Ethics on the question.
7. Privacy 'is important, but some people still like child services checking on some parents.
Pro brings up relevant considerations, my contrary thoughts aside.
befairbruh R1
1. Brings up the Pro Life high valuation of the unborn.
2. Brings up the Pro Life valuation, and that other methods can/could be pursued.
3. Brings up the Pro Life valuation, and argues for trying other methods.
One could argue such methods are not always easily available in society though.
4. Suggests societal considerations that could be made for women.
5. Brings up that some people are mentally harmed or haunted by their abortions.
This one a 'bit arguable, as societies vary, as well as it lacking statistics, but Pro's also lacked statistics.
It also lacks a bit in 'physical harm, compared to Pro's, though mental pain 'can result in physical harm.
6. Suggests focus on education and healthcare rather than focusing on making the practice legal.
'Questionable how well it would 'work though.
7. Brings up the Pro Life valuation.
I think Con manages to address all of Pros points, though Pro is still capable of addressing and blunting Cons arguments.
Hm, how does one address a difference in value?
I suppose one can disprove other side, Pro could claim/argue that Abortions done early enough are not killing people.
I suppose one can point out contrary goals and actions, as Pro did with 6. Just need to further argument.
RFV Part 2
WellThatsIntellectual R2
I see various religions and beliefs about abortion,
But then does debate not then become regional on whether people would agree of disagree?
Pro says when fetus starts to get important organs, is when it gets it's soul.
It seems a but of a jump to me.
Pro argues for killing (By there perspective) ensouled fetuses (24 weeks), as mercy killings.
I think Pro could have done better in mercy killing argument by giving specific examples of said unborn. Fetuses who are expected to die in agonizing pain within a week of birth, or are missing 95% of their brain or something.
Though the most extreme of Pro Lifes might still disagree, it 'would allow 'some abortions.
I still think not 'specifically defining what type of abortions in the debate description was a mistake, but Pro arguably 'is describing what they meant in Round 2.
A 'problem though, is that Pro has not yet addressed Cons arguments in Round 1.
Cons arguments aren't 'perfect, but in my view they 'do Address Pros arguments, Con's arguments in Round 1 have faults, same as Pros arguments, but Con has addressed Pro's arguments. Con has not quite fully.
befairbruh R2
Makes arguments on how some religions ban or discourage abortions.
Con 'still has problem of comment section number 4.
"One: An abortion within 24 weeks of the pregnancy
Two: If the parent finds out that the child is severely disabled and/or severely ill after the 24th week, they should still have the right to abort the child."
R3 and R4
No show for WellThatsIntellectual.
My conclusions
Hm, should I assume debate is whether said 2 abortions should be legal in all countries? This country? That countries 'ought take this view?
I think Pro has stronger argument for the severely disabled and/or severely ill unborn.
But that Con makes sufficient arguments against "An abortion within 24 weeks of the pregnancy" for various reasons stated in R1.
I think Pro 'could have argued against Cons arguments in round 1, but they were not. Though religion 'was addressed in R2 by Pro, so did Con.
Anyway, my vote to Con. Arguments.
Neither used sources.
Both understandable.
Pro missing rounds, a conduct hit.
No worries on sources,
It just helps one's argument if they having backing to what they claim as policy or statistics.
Though people still argue about 'true statistics or what the statistics 'mean.
I 'was curious about the white descendants,
Seems reasonable enough logic.
Though I still don't like Reparations long after the fact much.
I 'do recognize how some situations, such as freed slaves and their descendants, were not 'fixed after being freed and given 'small reparations.
What with the Jim Crow, KKK, Race Riots, and so on.
. . . Partially I dislike Big Government a bit.
Partially it's my view that it doesn't need to be 'Reparations, to help descendants.
Partially other things, as well I imagine, but I don't like examining myself and my reasons for views, too much, too much of the time.
(RFV Part 1)
Sunshineboy217 R1
Debate lacks clear definitions or examples of reparations.
Where do reparations come from?
I'm doubtful that American government would only take money from whites, whites descended from earlier America, or descended from slave traders, owners, southerners, people who traded with southerners, so on.
More likely it seems taxes would come from 'everyone.
It's more the 'Government doing Reparations, than purely whites.
Though of course people pay taxes, including American blacks, with no ancestors who were slaves in America. Or blacks who made good, and had ancestors who were slaves in America.
But I assume neither group would receive reparations.
. . . Personally I think they'd be best off just helping the poorest in America, regardless of race, if their intention is to raise the lower class from their situations.
. . . Which as Sunshineboy217 argues, might be more along the line of,
"Entrepreneurial encouragement plans, business investments, and more government investing into the infrastructure of black communities."
Though again such is for a specific group.
borz_kriffle R1
Describes Reparations more distinctly than Pro,
But I think it would aid Borz to use a source. Yes they said NAACP, and I can Google that, but direct hyperlinks can be helpful to check sources.
Are reparations considered something infinite? I 'think we have done Reparations before?
Is there some percent of the descendants that must leave the lower class, before the debt is considered paid?
Why not just do government programs for all poor people? It's been a while since slavery, as Pro says in Round 1.
R1 End Thoughts
I lean a bit towards Pro, as I do not see why there is a need to pick out the descendants of American slaves, for reparations.
I don't like the idea of making or allowing others to be an eternal victim class. Though of course I 'realize this is not what Reparations argues for. I think.
Debate may turn, based on Cons ability to clearly define Reparations or argue that American government has not fulfilled it's responsibility.
Or if Pro can argue the time has passed and the descendants situation has greatly changed.
People have come to America with 'nothing, and made something. Have not the descendants had that chance as well?
Some would argue no, that even after the Civil War, society has unfairly targeted them.
(RFV Part 2)
Sunshineboy217 R 2
Hm, is there a difference between Reparations and helping X group of people who are disproportionately lower class in America?
Eh, I think there is, so I won't ding Pro for supporting Reparations of a type, as it can be argued they aren't reparations.
Though I still think America would be better off 'just helping the poorer people in it. Well, if you go for Socialism I mean.
. . . Pro makes arguments that America has addressed it's part in slavery through previous actions.
borz_kriffle R2
Eh, I'm not sure that's an 'emotional argument, so much as a self interest and/or fairness argument. Though the self interest argument would only work for white voters.
Borz makes a fair point, I'm pretty sure America already spends money on various public works and social programs. So one 'could simply cut various programs by X amount, and redirect that spending.
But then they could cut spending and redirect it to 'various causes. Must be hard being in charge of the budget if one is 'trying to help people fairly, so many.
Though I 'still think Borz would be helped by a hyperlink, It 'really helps Cons case that Pro is not objecting to Cons claims of what reparations will or could consist of.
Not that Con is 'wrong, but it is possible there are 'other suggestions as to what reparations could be. If Pro allows Con to always suggest a solution that Pro has argued for themself in earlier rounds,
Then Reparations becomes acceptable by some of Pros own arguments of how government should help lower class descendants.
Con makes decent argument about descendants still being effected by the ripples of slavery.
His argument that nearly all the members of government owned slaves should have a source, but his argument will still hurt Pro unless 'Pro addresses it.
"Of the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention, about 25 owned slaves. Many of the framers harbored moral qualms about slavery. Some, including Benjamin Franklin (a former slaveholder) and Alexander Hamilton (who was born in a slave colony in the British West Indies) became members of anti-slavery societies."
https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-resources/teaching-resource/historical-context-constitution-and-slavery#:~:text=Of%20the%2055%20delegates%20to,members%20of%20anti%2Dslavery%20societies.
But bah I say, slavery existed many places in older days, (Further Rant Redacted)
Still, Pro 'did make arguments that America has already paid prices for slavery.
R2 Thoughts,
I'm starting to lean towards Con, due to Con seeming to have greater control of the definition of Reparations in the debate.
And some of Pros earlier arguments suggesting methods that matched with Con's suggested definitions of Reparations.
Admittedly Pro might not 'call their suggested actions Reparations, but I don't recall them arguing that.
(RFV Part 3)
Sunshineboy217 R3
You would 'Really be helped out here with sources or a definition of Reparations.
Con has given the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People as a source for the definition of Reparations.
By not defining a 'specific Reparations actions, you leave yourself open to 'many types of actions, not just giving descendants all "a few thousand dollars"
Eh, it's true that white people have been poor, then poor, or rich then poor, middle class and either way.
But if Con brings up various ways throughout history that society has discriminated against blacks, then your case is hurt.
Jim Crow as example, is nearer to now than the Civil War, as well as other nearer examples.
Side thought, would people with white skin that are descended from black slaves get reparations if they are poor?
Or white people descended from white slaves?
What about th-(Rant redacted)
Hm, I suppose Jim Crow isn't 'specifically slavery, but it 'is linked to it.
It's like tossing someone in a pit, then helping them out, but they're actually in a bigger pit with walls that you quickly build and oiled after you helped them out of the first pit.
Then you refuse to help them get over the walls, because you only said you would help them get out of the pit. Maybe.
But these are my own weird argument thoughts.
Eh, evil can be an overused word. That ignores context and subjectivity. But evil slaver argument by Pro doesn't factor much into debate anyway. And I don't care to defend slavers right this instant.
Eh, building of America can be a group effort.
But I get that Pro is trying to argue against debt to American slaves, I just don't think he's doing it very well.
Side thought, Ever watch Remember the Titans (2000)?
Time period and racism it depicts is closer than Reconstruction.
. . . But then Reparations 'usually 'does argue about Reparations for 'Slavery, not Reparations for not allowing same race schools during X period.
Though some might argue that parts of American society and Government have 'constantly been doing Reparations for that, by various actions such as same Race schools.
borz_kriffle R 3
SOURCES!
"The confederacy’s 11 states had 316,632 slave owners out of a free population of 5,582,222. This equals 5.67 percent of the free population of the confederacy were slave owners."
“That, however, does not tell us the extent of slave ownership. To better understand the extent of slavery’s impact, we need to realize a slave owner was the one person in a family who legally owned slaves. That person was usually the patriarch. There would be a spouse and sons and daughters who directly benefited from the family’s slave ownership and who stood to inherit enslaved people,” wrote Mackey."
"So, according to the Census of 1860, 30.8 percent of the free families in the confederacy owned slaves. That means that every third white person in those states had a direct commitment to slavery."
https://socialequity.duke.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/8.10.20.pdf
Random source I Googled, I imagine people disagree on the subject.
Con makes argument that focusing on specific lives can address inequality by pointing it out explicitly. Presumably while still believing All Lives Matter, but presumably thinks certain lives should be focused on during some events.
It's not a bad argument.
I'm not really 'invested in the argument about 'Who 'Built America, as I think everyone did.
R3 Thoughts
Heavily leaning towards Con, I think Pro has gotten a bit distracted,
Though I 'personally 'still disagree with modern reparations for the descendants of earlier American slavery.
(RFV Part 4)
Sunshineboy217 R 4
Your problem Pro, is that you've allowed Con to define some long term solutions as being Reparations (I think), not that he's 'wrong about said definition.
But by failing to specifically define Reparations at the start, you allow many types of Reparations. And are better off arguing against Reparations for other reasons.
Such as your arguments about it deepening divides or being long ago.
I think debate would have gone better without Con saying "emotional angle" or "Unicorns"
Not that I think such are highly insulting, but they can be taken that way.
Not really great for Pro either to say opponent is "twisting" their words, again not 'meant as insulting. But people often don't 'think they are twisting their opponents words, and sometimes they are not, sometimes they are. But there are more diplomatic ways to address their takes on your arguments.
. . . Though some people like straight approach, they're not 'wrong. I'm just indirect at times perhaps.
Pro makes argument that the descendants have had time to get out of post slavery conditions.
borz_kriffle Round 4
Con makes arguments about necessity at times of short and long solutions.
. . . Though I might argue earlier reparations 'were the short solution, and longer solutions, such as property given to former slaves, and later on right to vote.
Though personally 'I think (Rant redacted)
Round 4
Not much said here changes my leaning towards voting Con, for reasons I've already said.
Round 5 Just doing both.
I forget if profanity is illegal on this site, I suppose it could be a conduct hit,
But I 'think conduct hits are used more for 'insults.
Profanity is more a matter of 'style, which people like or dislike,
Though 'usually I think people dislike it if it is used too much.
I don't think Con insulted Pro or called him a white supremacist.
I don't think Con 'wins for Pro accusing him of such or reporting him.
But I might add it slightly to the scale of Conduct towards Con winning.
Pro can be upset and make what I think are mistakes in perception.
It's not as big a Conduct hit as if it would be 'if Pro was insulting Con.
Well, my Reasons for Vote should be clear enough. I think.
@Round 2
I don't think it's 'bad to use religion in debate.
But I think it works best when one's audience and/or opponent shares your religious values.
The arguments that appeal to people, depend on their values,
Even for something such as guns,
People will use different arguments in different countries, I assume.
RFV 1/3
Pro Round 1
Alas, I am unable to access Pro's Links.
But I will Google some about South Africa.
What I googled is at bottum of my vote, but percent of people voting does 'seem to be dropping.
And some people are arguing infrastructure problems with voting polls.
Though I am still unsure about my information, but Pro arguement of the difficulty of voting, 'still works a 'bit against them in this debate.
As voting percents might be increased by ease of access, rather than compulsory voting.
Still, Pro makes arguements of how voting keeps citizens engaged in goverment,
And argues it to be a a freedom and responsibility.
I think they make a fair point about keeping the public engaged,
But there are legal responsibilities and non-mandated responsibilities,
Non-mandated responsibilities can still have consequences if ignored.
But Pro 'wants the non-mandated responsibility of voting to 'be legally mandated.
They still need further argument for why it 'must be legally mandated.
Con Round 1
Compulsion 'is a but contrary to Freedom, I suppose,
But many if not 'all governments have Laws/Compulsion.
Expressed Opinion
Pro might require the people vote for available candidates, no abstaining.
But Con makes a point that people's opinion is still expressed in not voting.
One might argue though, that compulsory voting makes sure everyone had the 'chance to vote.
Less Representative Results
'Not if there is an abstain vote.
But Con has a point that someone who knows nothing voting for Canidate A, does not mean the know nothing Voter wanted Canidate A's policies or vision.
RFV 2/3
Impact Marginalized
A fair point, and why not every citizen is a lawmaker, we set some people aside to take the time.
I think Pro 'might dodge it by compensating people, or assuming that voting and info is made easier.
I don't think X should be mandatory, assumes that X should be mandatory with 'current circumstances, I think it can mean X should be mandatory 'and circumstances should change that X being mandatory works well.
Since it wasn't stated one way or the other, I think circumstances changing can be argued either way.
Less Democratic
By removing peoples freedom to not vote, or vote for no one.
Backwards Cause Effect
Interesting argument,
Though Pro could argue by example of depression,
Depressed people sometimes do not get sun, food, socialization,
And so get stuck in viscous cycle, while they may initially be depressed for other reasons,
A lack of Sun, food, socialization are also causes in depression.
People 'having to vote, 'could engage them, though I think Pro has a point that much of the reason they are not voting, is they are disengaged.
Con first 3 sources did not 'say much, 4th source did, but suggested various causes.
I don't consider them to be strong sources.
Yes source 1 'says that, but I can't 'access the article, someone can say 'anything, but I like there being a bit more proof by the sayer, more explanation.
Source 5 is a bit better, but again a lot of information is lacking,
I'm leaning slightly towards Con for sources, but I still don't consider them strong.
It just seems common sense that if you force someone to participate in X, 'some of those forced will look into it. Like parents who half watch their kids cartoons.
In something relevant to themselves, there would be even more engagement.
Source 6 has a lot more info, but is a bit difficult to chew and digest,
But because of Pro source issues, and lack of round 2, sources most likely going to Con.
Source 6 'does give me a new thought,
I can imagine 'every user on DART being forced to vote, and if RFV is required 'many would be disqualified.
If RFV not required, be a lot of bad RFVs, lot of Troll votes, I imagine.
Con makes a strong argument of the difficulty of forcing people to know, understand, or care.
RFV 3/3
Fantasy World
I'm not sure that voting 'can't be easy.
In some countries there is a Starbucks or two on every block,
Most people have identification,
People talk about crypto, surely devices 'can be put in many places, there are ATMs many places.
Con Brings up Argument of Poor Father and Work
Does a good job of arguing Pro making voting compulsory, would at least need many exceptions.
Though. . . One might take that as granted, such as saying everyone needs to wear shoes in a restaurant, well, one might not demand that of a person with no feet, or a foot swelling disease.
Still, Con makes a case, also with the sparse spread out rural population. Freedom argument.
Preemptively argues against mail in voting,
Again arguing the time sink.
Presumably they might care to choose to vote if the issues were important. But such goes back around to their argument of people not voting shows their views.
Voter thinking on Pro sources,
I 'did look up South Africa 2024 election though.
"Voter turnout has declined since the end of apartheid, when 86% of eligible voters turned out.[33] For this election, 27 million people were eligible to vote.[34] Fifty-five percent of them were women, while voter registration was highest among those aged between 30 and 39 years old.[35] Only 58% of the country's registered voters voted in the election."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_South_African_general_election
One can see the turnout lower over time.
https://www.electionguide.org/countries/id/198/
"The IEC has come in for severe criticism as voters had hours-long waits at some polling stations, mostly in urban centres. Understaffing, overwhelmed and undertrained officials, and glitchy scanners were cited as some of the most common problems. But, in a testimony to how important people deemed this election, voters waited patiently, some for as long as five hours, to cast their ballots. Others, no doubt, quit the queues. The IEC said that poor internet connections were to blame at many polling stations as poll workers could not use their Voter Management Devices to confirm voters and had to resort to manual verification. The commission insisted problems were limited to a minority of its 23,293 voting stations and said polling station would remain open after the 21:00 cut-off time provided voters were already in line."
https://www.oxfordeconomics.com/resource/south-africa-elections-2024-counting-underway-after-calm-voting-day/
Pass.
If the mods remove my vote, so be it, and it might encourage me to try harder when voting on future debates with other people.
While I suppose it might be annoying to have someone vote for the other person, or annoying if they give (In your view) bad RFD,
I don't think I vote bombed, I think I read the debate,
I found your comments hostile and unappreciative of my 'effort to vote,
And so I am disinclined to spend further time upon it.
I am not interested in debating you.
I am not debating with you, no.
However, if I read an argument, I think is well that I should state why I think it is a good or bad argument.
More concisely, I considered Con to have better sources and arguments.
I 'could explain 'why I think that, but you seem to dislike that.
As far as I am aware, Vote Bombing is defined as,
Vote bombing means to vote biasedly or without proper justification. [1] Vote bombing occurs when a member casts what might be regarded as an unwarranted vote, usually indicated by that member giving an unsatisfactory reason for their decision to vote the way they did (e.g. "I agree with Pro." or "Con didn't refute Pro's case.")
https://ddo.fandom.com/wiki/Vote_bombing
I think I was 'explicit with stating 'why I voted,
I do not think I simply voted Con with the justification of "I agree with Con."
RFV 1/6
Title
Well, might depend how you define "divine" or "spiritual"
Description,
Might have been good to put definitions here.
Con Americandebater24 R1
Opening
"special significance"
Some might argue that people with PTSD and night terrors, nightmares, are spiritually sick.
Depends on how one defines spirit.
First Argument
The source doesn't say dreams are "nothing more than", But does say, "Dreams are stories and images that our minds create while we sleep."
It also says,
"There are several theories about why we dream."
"Possible explanations include"
"Much that remains unknown about dreams"
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/284378#_noHeaderPrefixedContent
Hm, does 'every dream need to have a divine or spiritual message?
It's not as though they 'couldn't, some people see all of life that way, just because humans don't pick up on it all, or don't view small dull parts as adding to it all, doesn't mean that they are not, to people who view it that way.
Second Argument
Source is okay.
Berean Literal Bible
"Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves." Matthew 7:15
That something can be manipulated by humans, does that prevent it from being used by the divine, or to show divine understanding?
(Personally I'm still an Atheist, just saying)
Third argument
Wikipedia says
"Anecdotal evidence, with a few safeguards, represents the bulk of evidence in court."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence
My thoughts
Despite my criticisms, I don't think Cons arguments are 'bad. But I think there might be room for Pro to make a case.
I think definitions might have been valuable to Con.
RFV 2/6
Pro tigerlord R1
Arguments
Identifies 'some dreams as divine/spiritual, and others not.
While I think their arguments would be convincing to one already a believer in the divine/spiritual aspect of dreams.
I think they will be less so to a person who takes a more materialistic/conceptual/metaphor/emergent property view of the divine/spiritual.
I expect later rounds might include arguments on when records/history is seen as fact or not.
Brings up rebuttals to Cons arguments,
Argues for personal experiences place in observation and conclusions in life.
Argues for historical records and outcomes.
My thoughts
I lean a bit towards Cons arguments.
While personal experiences 'might be true, I tend to discount them, as they 'might not be true.
The logical reasoning of Allah's control, 'requires the voter to think such true as well.
I think history is not always perfectly recorded, sometimes it is recorded after, or with mistaken perspective.
Con Americandebater24 R2
Argument 1
What 'would be sufficient evidence?
Logical statements and conclusions can have flaws, yeah.
Argument 2
Brings up the argument of Pros arguments presupposing their religion to be correct, might not convince people nonreligious or of other religions.
Argument 3
Con source does not quite say what they claim Divinity to be, looks to me.
I'm not sure that 'theoretically divine experience could not work side by side with modern science.
There 'are religious and spiritual scientists, I would think.
Brings up objections to Pros use of the Qur'an.
Rebuttals
Argues that some of Pros arguments require presupposition of religion being true.
Presents alternate explanations for Pros personal experience.
My thoughts,
Still leaning towards Con.
RFV 3/6
Pro tigerlord R2
Rebuttal 1
I think this is the type of debate that often 'happens between people of a more Materialistic bent, and people of a Religious bent.
They sometimes have 'very different views and presuppositions. So the debate becomes one between two systems, not the implications or uses of said systems.
Con 'has included sources where people have studied dreams, sources commonly recognized as scientific.
Rebuttal 2
I think it is true that science and academia, 'especially in the past,
Have a long history of being supported by religious institutions, and some directions people have taken science, were motivated by their love of their religion, and wanting to understand it more.
There 'is a difficulty though, in claiming science and religion to be the same,
Or in convincing people that religious books are science books.
'Especially if one is 'not religious.
Rebuttal 3
A person's skin being scratched, and their skin under the fingernails of a subject of homicide,
Vs someone who saw the individual killing the victim,
While I do not say that a witness holds 'no weight, I think the physical evidence would hold more.
Rebuttal 4
Hm, I don't think Con has brought up Dawkins,
But I don't think Con is wrong to use authorities as evidence to support their position.
Though such does not mean that individuals are 'wrong, or did not experience what they did,
But, the point of authorities is to have something one can turn to, as something recognized as fact by a group.
Pro himself used their religion as an authority.
Rebuttal 1
Con 'has used sources on people studying dreams and possible origins of them.
Having something verifiable 'helps voters lean to one side or the other.
Though some people have their experiences and might be leaned by less verifiable experiences, thoughts, and reasonings.
'Without those experiences, thoughts, and reasonings. One is left with the verifiable.
RFV 4/6
Rebuttal 1
I don't think Con was calling Pro a liar,
But seeing is believing, humans are fallible.
People who are Materialists, have the assumption of alternate explanations for the experiences of Spiritualists,
As Spiritualists, have the assumption of alternate explanations for the experiences of Materialists.
(I am just 'assuming Con is a Materialist in this debate though)
Rebuttal 2
Even if Con cannot 'find the Divine nature, if they can find a Materialistic explanation, it sems reasonable they should be satisfied with the Materialistic explanation.
Rebuttal 1
Logic is often a chain of thoughts, if even one link is Illogical, then the logic can become wrong, even if 99% of the rest was logical. I think.
Rebuttal 3
King Nebuchadnezzar, that some dreams come to pass, does not mean to the Materialist that the dream 'knew of the future. If I have a dream that a quarter is going to flip on heads and it 'does, that doesn't mean the dream was divinely inspired.
There are 'many dreams recorded, often vague, Oracles often vague. Leaves room for interpretation to be 'correct.
Gist of My Opponent’s Arguments
Con offers explanations, and cuts off what they see as unneeded explanation.
Religions can often be subjective.
If spirituality does not exist, then it cannot be the explanation.
The 'facts of religion, are often not the facts for people not 'of that religion, as Con has argued earlier.
Argument
Pro offers argument of Allah existing in a way that impacts the physical realm. While this 'does offer some explanation of divine/spiritual in the physical.
I think Con has an easier time by not 'needing said explanation for their argument.
I think Pros arguments could do well with people of the same presuppositions as Pro, but have trouble convincing people of different presuppositions.
Millions of testimonies,
The 'problem for Pro here, is that millions can be wrong, literally 'everyone in the world during various time periods can be wrong.
Not that it has 'no weight for consideration, but some people including myself, prefer explanations that explain it various ways that they were mistaken.
. . . Or that they were not 'wrong, but that some were not speaking literally.
Pro does offer 'possible explanation, and argues the limit of current science is not proof.
. . . It 'is true, that people can think something is impossible by their own limitations, when in truth it was possible, already in existence, or done.
But until said proof is shown, or shown as likely, many will not find the arguments of 'maybe it could exist, to be convincing.
Glancing down I see Pro and Con 'are both including videos,
WHYYYYY. Eh, I'll watch them.
RFV 5/6
Pro Video
1:25 Taking up arms,
Well, it 'can be dangerous to take up arms. It can become an all or nothing situation. Can be 'big consequences if you lose. 'And even if you win.
Violence, 'I think can often end up one's last resort, because one can be destroyed if one loses.
Even when one wins, members of one's own faction can 'again use violence and turn on you.
Infrastructure can also end up being destroyed.
3:00 Libraries being burned
Knowledge often isn't the primary loot people take before they burn, yeah.
I'm not well read enough to have a view on how seriously the military was viewed at various times in Islamic history.
8:14
Eh, I think one might see more Atheists in USA than Europe, due to there being more people in USA who view Bible literally. I could be mistaken though.
End
I 'do find it interesting to hear the viewpoints of people of other places and cultures.
Not quite how 'I see it myself. 'Lot to unpack though.
Con Americandebater24 R3 Video
Had sources.
Argues opponent used Authority of their religious book themself.
2:53 Eh, I can conceive of religion helping one in a biology class, though it would be more about the religions commentary of human effort, than any biological claims religions may or may not make.
3:44 Argues against personal claims being placed over proof.
4:21 Notes Pros use of 3rd party authority.
4:58 Notes flaws that can occur when using logic.
6:00 I'm not sure the studies say that God 'wasn't involved. But they 'do offer explanations that don't mention God, I think.
7:20 I'm not really keeping a count or knowledge of 'when, but you guys have 'both been a little aggressive. Not 'outright insulting, but 'little 'tiny bits. 'Seems to me.
9:10 Eh, I 'really don't care to comb over the debate again for conduct.
Pro tigerlord R3
Less space.
You know, 'both of you, the word/character limit in debates exists for a reason, but eh, if you both don't mind bypassing it.
I don't 'think it is 'wrong to talk to the voter in a debate, though I imagine there can be Pros 'and Cons to said tactic.
Fair to point out that it can be done to create a connection, but I don't think such is 'necessarily wrong myself.
I am of the position that emotion holds a place in debates, though a lot of people talk about 'just using logic in debates, I think such people ignore the real life application of debates.
Overemphasis on Scientific Empiricism, will appeal to some people more than others,
Will appeal to some people less than others.
For people big on science, it often 'can be a debate between religion and science,
Doesn't 'have to be, but often way it turns out,
You 'both agreed to this debate and your opponents it sounded to me when reading.
RFV 6/6
Undermining the Use of Religious Evidence
Is a fair point to make, and a consistent theme that Con has argued.
People of different beliefs, will often lack the presuppositions required to take the claims of different beliefs at face value. I think.
. . . Though one 'can argue science is not a monolith, not 'all groups believe in the same scientific claims.
Key point2
I'm not so sure about Pros claims, sources would be valuable to Pro.
Key point 3
It's too late to argue who the burden of proof rests on, (Last round)
And there are various arguments on how to apply the BoP.
I've been applying it equally to both, since it wasn't mentioned.
Pro makes decent argument about the 'application of dreams mattering more than whether the dreams are physical.
However, In my view Con has been arguing effectively against people applying only to Pros religion as well as the existence of Divine or Spiritual argued by Pro.
Though it is possible that a person possessing many of Pros views would be more convinced by Pro than myself.
Hobson and various other sciences.
The 'problem is that Pro and Con have been using the terms Divine and Spiritual, in a way I would classify as 'more than psychological/human culture/Emotion/Will/So On.
Another problem, is this all 'really feels like a final round rush, which generally is frowned upon in debates I think.
It 'is offering a lot of sources claiming the limits of science regarding dreams and consciousness.
It is also difficult to digest easily.
"I still apologize to my opponent if anything let him feel disrespectful and I will try my best to be more in up coming debates with anyone."
I think that is a nice gesture.
RFV End Thoughts
I'm not sure of DARTs stance on final round arguments.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6503-debate-protocol-last-round-new-argument
But I'm still taking the view that Cons arguments were more consistent, more simple throughout debate.
While many of Pros were last round additions.
While Con added many sources and arguments of others in the final round,
I view it more as quantity in application, than quality.
I view Cons sources of studies as more objective than the Quran.
It is possible were I a Muslim I would hold the Quran as a good source, but I am not, and do not.
I thought Pro and Con both have interesting perspectives.
But my vote in arguments and sources goes to Pro
Conduct tie.
Legibility tie, though I might lean towards Con due to structure, I found both understandable.
Round 3,
Can't say I know what you mean by skipped either.
It might help your argument if you provided sources or excerpts for your claims.
Dang,
Domain registration probably expiring,
And owner maybe moving.
That 'is chance of danger for the site.
Oh I didn't think you were.
I think the sites bones are still good, myself.
Doesn't have a massive bot problem like Debate.org had towards it's end.
And I like the 'functions of this site well enough,
A problem with pure forums for me, such as Reddit, is it's easy for someone to post a 'single comment and end the conversation there.
Debate setup on this site 'ideally forces a few rounds of well thought out answers and responses to one's own arguments.
Don't worry about it,
Nyxified and Best.Korea were talking about wanting a higher population on DebateArt, not criticizing you. I'd think.
Though possible you didn't think they were criticizing you.
Don't worry about the motions much anyhow,
People on this site and the world vary a lot in quality,
I've only won 2 in 10 debates. (On 'this site)
I like to think most of us are just happy to engage with other people of different perspectives, people in different circumstances and points in life.
Voting in what?
RFV 1
Title
Eh, I think it's always 'an issue, as I think different parties have different effects on American values. Maybe not 'major issue though.
Description
Well, some state regulations after Roe vs Wade was overturned in 2022, 'did piss some people off.
lacr3000 R1
Yeah, it's at state now, but that doesn't make everyone happy, and being president can allow a great influence on policy and mechanisms of government. Such as Judges.
Pros argues that neither candidate would be 'likely to effect 'immediate huge effect on abortion in either direction.
KMA0017 R1
Brings up the argument I'd expect, of the influence of the president.
Though it 'is fair to point out that lacr3000 titled debate "major issue", so Pro still has room to argue their side.
Brings up the Supreme Court.
Has sources, to back claims of Presidential effects, such as Supreme Court.
RFV 2
lacr3000 R2
Pro argues other policies and factors might be more major than abortion.
Argues Trump has achieved his goal.
Pro might also do well to argue that abortions 'current state at state level is ideal. Though that might be a hard sell, to extremists on either side who want it 'all Federally 'their way.
Argues for the value of the filibuster, that it 'can still be bypassed by either major party. But still plays a part in keeping legislation moderate on 'both sides.
Pro includes sources, to solidify their claims.
I think Pro is doing well, but might need to state clearly and sell why the 'importance of these issues other than abortion, that should be the 'major issues.
I suppose economy, war, 'seem self evident, but some people are one issue voters, or discount other issues.
KMA0017 R2
Con makes good arguments on how abortion can matter to people, and how people often care about what 'could happen.
Though one might argue people should care less about 'could, and care more about probability.
Argues the importance of presidency in appointing judges.
I'm not yet convinced by Cons arguments against the Filibuster, both parties seem to get about 50 50 in America. It's not as though only 1 percent of people or officials are Republicans and they are blocking an 'enormous majority.
I think Con is doing well, but I think they need to speak more on 'why Abortion would be a 'major issue.
RFV 3
lacr3000 R3
Pro argues probability should matter more than could.
An issue I'm also thinking on is people 'do care about issues that effect them 'personally, 'deeply often. X people care about X policies. Even if Y policy effects 'everyone, X people often fix on the X issue.
But as Pro says, mainstream issues 'still personally effect people.
I suppose economy still effects someone's personal wallet,
War might effect someone's life, or life of a loved one.
I think Pro is disarming the 'could well,
But some people aren't 'happy with what 'is currently, and want more. As Con argues elsewhere, President effects gears of government, such as the Judges, change doesn't even need to happen during their presidency, just placing a few gears is 'bad to some people's minds.
It becomes less will it happen in a year, and will it happen in 10 or 20.
Pro argues Trump has fulfilled his goals,
But I find Cons arguments persuasive, of how 'much and long a President can effect policy.
I think Con argues well and disarms Pros filibuster arguments here,
Pointing out necessary numbers and previous acts passed, that Pro argued would have been prevented by the filibuster.
Pro argues against Cons fire arguments well,
Fire argument is flawed anyway, since 'war seems more a fire, and immediate danger, than abortion. . . Though 'depends maybe, many women might find abortion an immediate danger, but Pro has their argument of probability. And existence of Blue states.
KMA0017 R3
I don't think Pro is moving the goalposts myself.
Hm, Con 'inching towards misconduct by words such as "reeks of prescriptive arrogance"
I'm not dinging them, just saying that such words sometimes lead to friction in a debate, and bad conduct on both sides sometimes.
Still, Pro makes good argument of Presidents effects on the gears of government.
I'm not convinced Trump will take or be able to take further action, but am still open to such argument.
There's that language again "Revisionist" just has a negative connotation, Con is of course free to phrase their argument as they like, I just think it might add friction.
Ah, and "quaint" such words are insulting of the other person's ability.
Sure I'm for people having thick skin, but one of parts judged in debates is still conduct, and sometimes a person is just looking for 'small parts that tilt a debate one way or another when voting.
I'm not convinced by Cons arguments of the filibuster as a minority tool, Republican or Democrat, neither is a 'minority in America I think, not like the Green Party or Anti Alcohol Party.
Con makes the personal to some people argument, a fair argument.
"laughably simplistic" Another cm.
RFV 4
lacr3000 R4
Pro makes a point about if a person values another policy more, they should not be moved by Abortion. They do it by listing 'several policies against 'one though.
I think Pro would do better by showing what 'makes something a major issue.
Is abortion a major issue outweighed by several other major issues? It would 'still be a major issue then.
I don't think Pro argues against the effect of the President well, indirect, at times yes. Small, I am doubtful.
Pro argues well of 'immediate effect, perhaps the 'immediate threat of war, or policies the President can 'immediately and directly pass 'should be a greater concern, than their indirect influence on future policy.
I find Pro convincing, and they do a good job on showing the immediate relevance of various issues, 'but. . . People can be very. . . 'valued, hold to their values strongly even in the face of other issues, they see those other issues as mattering less than their own principles and values.
Argues the Republicans as a majority, and value of the filibuster.
I'm leaning towards a tie, 'possibly voting Pro.
KMA0017 R4
I 'still don't think Pro moved the goalposts,
Pro is right that the claim of the debate is that abortion should not be a 'major issue.
But they have done a decent job of arguing against it as an 'immediate problem.
Though Pro 'does of course have decent arguments of Presidential effect on gears and time, as well as some individuals valuing Abortion as an issue.
I don't think Con is 'trying to be insulting.
"laughably shortsighted" "pretending"
I'm not convinced by their 'bet argument,
Everything in life is a gamble, but some outcomes are far more expected than others.
"You accuse me" "presumptuous tone."
I think you're the one making this personal Con.
Con argues the impact of Supreme Court.
Which 'is a fair argument, but I find Pros arguments of 'immediate concerns fairly decent.
I'm leaning towards a tie.
Con argues Trumps personality and likelihood of him appealing to his base by at least affording towards further abortion policies.
Decent argument.
Ehh, Con seems to have a strong bias for the Democrats, which isn't 'bad, but it has them come off as less objective than Pro in this debate.
I don't think being a Republican is 'bad either.
Con has a point on the 'effect of Roe being overturned, it 'did change many people's lives and actions in response.
Con makes decent argument on the slow but substantial effects of presidential power.
I'm not as convinced by their argument of how voters 'should think.
Just because one 'understands why a person thinks something, doesn't mean a person isn't thinking wrong.
Not that I'm saying Abortion is right or wrong in this debate.
RFV 5
lacr3000 R5
I think both sides have done great in this debate,
I might only nitpick with some of Cons language.
Eh, just because something doesn't have a 'direct impact, doesn't mean one should not be concerned about it's indirect impact.
The filibuster felt a bit of a sidebar in the debate to me, though of course it was addressing 'ability to enact immediate direct change.
I think Pro does well in arguing ad hominem by Con,
But I'm still not dinging anyone for conduct, though it does help Pro some in argument, by arguing they are addressing the arguments of people, not requiring people to gain Pros blessing.
Eh, I think politicians are often liars, 'especially Trump,
I think Con has decent argument on Trump making 'some kind of moves to appeal to his supporters by 'something related to abortion.
KMA0017 R5
Con makes point again of presidents vast indirect influence.
Con 'did make argument earlier of how abortion can be linked to other policies, such as healthcare or economics. Though I think they are 'adding arguments a bit here, in the 'last round, that Pro is no longer able to respond to.
I am not convinced by Cons arguments of the filibuster, I am more convinced by Pro, but consider it a bit of a sidebar.
Again Con 'did make arguments of how overturning Roe effected people, but they are also 'adding arguments in the last round that Pro can no longer respond to.
Final thoughts
I think both won out on different arguments in the debate, that left me thinking tie.
Pro makes good arguments on other policies being important, on a lack of immediate power.
Con makes god arguments on the impact and length of indirect power, as well as people valuing what they will value.
I also think Cons arguments of the immediate impact of Roe being overturned was excellent, but think they were a bit late in explicit stating of it.
Sources, extensive on both sides.
Legibility equal.
Conduct equal, I don't think either was outright insulting towards one another.
Lot of people still love their partners after they get disfigured or grow old.
Though some people still look good in either case.
Other person being a good, sane, loving person, who will be a good partner or parent,
Important to a number of people.
"I take a look at my wife and realize she's very plain
But that's just perfect for an Amish like me"
- Weird Al
I had to.
Even if someone doesn't 'say something in many words,
What they are saying in implications can be many.
Sorry if my arguments were not what you were looking for.
It was not my intent to be difficult.
Other two arguments I considered were, that if the afterlife doesn't exist then sin 'very much material.
If God does exist, then it is objectively tied to their standards.
Looks 'definitely matter to me. I'm shallow that way.
Though I'm not interested in pursuing romance myself. Would require too much commitment.
Looks I assume generally matter to most other people.
At least to a degree.
While I think someone 'can love and have a relationship with someone who is great, that doesn't mean that looks were not a factor. That person lacking looks was just awesome in other ways that mattered more than the lack of looks.
Given a choice between two people who look about the same, or pass some threshold of minimum looks, then factors other than looks are weighed.
I don't think looks always matter to some people,
But I think they often matter to many people.
And that's just natural looks,
How a person takes care of themself also matter, though I suppose we can ignore the 'implications of their actions in this specific topic.
Being filthy, is usually a turn off for people.
. . .
Again, I think looks 'can matter less, with some individuals being awesome in other ways, or the chooser having different qualities in a person they value.
But for most people, I think it's something they factor, even if it factors less strongly than other considerations.
RFV Part 1
Description
Definition of slavery 'might be nice, but maybe Pro intends to argue the existence of various 'Slaveries, that they argue people do not consider evil.
Pro Round 1
What is and is not Freedom or Slavery, looks to be a push here in round 1.
Arguments about various aspects of life such as jobs being slavery.
I'm not sure imprisoning people counts as slavery.
Though when people force them to labor and the imprisoner profit from said labor, it leans towards slavery.
Argues context should be taken into account for each situation of slavery.
Argues reparations and I'd assume taxes as slavery.
Some people see Freedom as an absolute good, situations that people decide Slavery is necessary, is sometimes seen as Necessary or Lesser Evil, but not 'Good. I think.
Slavery often seen as more of a 'forceful situation, than Pro suggests. But Pros point is probably the coercion.
Con Round 1
I don't disagree with that definition of Slavery, but I imagine Pro will argue what 'is having to do what another tells you and having no Freedom?
Basic Utilitarian morality makes me nervous, I don't want to be the one sacrificed for the greater good.
Morally Neutral, not bad, but I think Pro means slavery can be good or bad, depending on context, not that it has no effect good or bad.
I see what Con is saying by Slavery itself still being bad if it cures kids of cancer, but their definition of Moral, included,
"moral if it results in more joy than pain"
Action or Result, the defining characteristic of a policy?
My Thoughts Round 1
Still early, debate being defined, fair arguments on both sides.
Pro Round 2
Pro points out sentence they used in round 1 to define slavery,
I think it could have been a bit more clear Pro was using such as their definition, but I do see it now.
Pro argues Slavery not inherently bad, nor Freedom inherently Good.
Argues people have their Freedoms limited. I assume examples of such would be laws of society or children having limited Freedom, but these are my examples, not Pros. Additionally one might argue that children are less free by their circumstance until they have learned and grown up under parental guidance. But they are less free by their nature, not the parental constraints. But of course people use the word 'Free to speak even of animals such as chickens not being Free to explore beyond the walls of a farm. Problem pops up of defining Freedom (For me).
Pro argues happiness does not make something good.
Pro argues Desire isn't everything. I can see direction Pro is coming from, but then should they not offer some definition or example of Good themselves then?
Pro defines Slavery as,
"Slavery though which is obligation to something, to do with that something you can do no otherwise is neither good or bad ."
I'm not sure that's a 'great definition of Slavery myself, I also find it a bit difficult to parse. A 'problem for Pro though, is that they did not use that definition of Slavery in the description of this debate. Which leaves door open for Con to argue their own definition of slavery.
Still,
By Pros definition, I suppose people in prison would be enslaved to the action of being in prison.
Pro argues Context.
Con Round 2
Eh, one can 'assume Pro is arguing various Ends are Good, such as serial killers being enslaved to prison, results in less dead people.
Though Con 'has brought up the argument that the 'Action itself is still bad.
Eh, some people like the action of work, and will work under an employer, so they have something to do.
Of course, most people don't see jobs as slavery, but some do. Also lot of people don't 'want to work, and are forced unwillingly by circumstance.
I think Pro would be better off insisting their own definitions have equal or greater weight than Pros, by common peoples general use and understanding of the term slavery.
My Thoughts Round 2
Still early, debate being defined, fair arguments on both sides.
I think 'slight edge to Pro, due to their argument of Ends,
It is a bit like saying a sword is not Good or Evil, only the End is preforms.
Course a sword is usually designed for killing people, which is Bad, unless one is killing bad people, then it's Good, except killing anyone even bad people is a bit Bad. Actions vs Ends.
RFV Part 2
Pro Round 3
I think it would be 'better if Pro defined what 'made something Good or Bad.
But one can argue that the Good and Bad don't matter, what matters is that Slavery is being argued to be a Neutral hammer.
. . . Though I still think defining Good and Bad helps one define Neutral.
Eh, people usually have something in 'mind when they describe an action or item.
Con Round 3
I am reminded of the Story of the Chinese Farmer who says maybe.
Guns don't kill people.
Slavery 'is an action though, someone is being enslaved,
Maybe a gun isn't evil, but shooting someone with a gun is often seen as evil.
Slavery cannot rest by itself, it is tied to action, the action of taking away Freedom as Con argues.
Of course Pro argues not all Freedom is good.
Con argues willing slavery would not be slavery.
Con Definition of Slavery, "The condition of not only being able to do what another specific person tells you to do, and having no freedom"
Pro definition of Slavery, "obligation to something, to do with that something you can do no otherwise is neither good or bad ."
Personally I think 'both the definitions read stilted, but by both definitions I 'think a person could 'enter slavery willingly. Some slaveries had exit options, where you could buy your Freedom I think, course lot of times people remove such an option.
So far I think Cons strongest argument is Slavery being a lesser evil.
Though there might still be flaws with that.
Pro agues Context, but I wonder what Pro 'imagines Con could have argued, if they do not accept their lesser evil argument.
Eh, it 'might still be bad to imprison someone, even if they are a killer,
But people I think would commonly say you preformed a good action and end.
Though I 'do appreciate Cons argument of the Action being an Evil.
Pro Round 4
Pro argues Context, and argues not everyone wants Freedom.
Con Round 4
Hm, should one look at definition of Slavery from Consequence or Deontological?
'Can Pro say something is Neutral without Defining Good and Evil?
Pro argues common sense for calling something Good or Evil.
Con argues willing Slavery is no longer Slavery, they may have a point, but this is difficulty of definition not being clearly defined before start of debate.
What Slavery 'is, becomes part of the debate.
Con Definition of Slavery, "The condition of not only being able to do what another specific person tells you to do, and having no freedom"
Does not include whether a Slave 'wants or wants 'not to do what the Slaver wants.
Reason for Vote
Sources, Conduct, Legibility all Neutral for obvious reasons.
I think Con argued well, but I think they tripped up a few times,
I think Pro argued well by keeping to their Context argument, though I think that's a bit cheap, wouldn't such make many or all Xs Neutral? Why not just have a debate that all Xs are neutral until Context is applied.
. . .
Con makes Deontological Argument,
Pro makes Consequence Argument.
. . . But I think Pro does a better job at chipping away at Cons Deontological Argument, by arguing for willing Slavery,
I would have needed Con to better argue and prove their definition of Slavery to always be unwilling to make this a tie or Con Vote.
So my Vote goes to Pro.
What do you mean by gender?
How many are there?
I don't know much about how people view the subject recently.
I 'might, but the possibility for failure and torture being high,
I'd might be tempted to save it for myself,
Hopefully I'll never have to know what I would decide.
Better at what?
Well, ChatGPT doesn't seem conscious to me, yet.
Maybe when they attach a brain organoid to one,
Though I suppose one might argue that brain organoids are not artificial.
If I critisize either side, it is not because I think I could do better, it's just my surface thoughts.
Reason for Vote Part 1
R1 Moozer325
My thoughts on Pro R1
I think Pro brings up fair questions that bother people on the existence of God.
I don't think people are unable to offer excuses or possibilities, but. . . Such offerings work better on people who identify God in certain ways or have faith.
Someone spiritually deaf or blind, could not be convinced by such, I'd think.
And even those who supposedly have the ears and eyes for it, how much do they 'truly see, 'truly hear?
Though perhaps it is enough to know 'something is there, to have a 'direction of what one should value, how one should act.
I'm still an Atheist though.
Anyway, I think Pro's round 1 would be considered decent enough arguments by most people.
Religious people often believe in an afterlife, or a reoccurrence.
Is a human lifespan that long compared to X? I say X as I don't know what an afterlife 'would be.
For reoccurrence, doesn't some version of Hinduism believe in Brahman as a God, something or other about everything being one. And people reincarnating trying to be better people each time, learning lessons, but also there's other people who are also them in a sense also trying. Just the nature of existence to have evil.
. . . Though you define God as
"God: a perfectly good, omnipotent and omniscient being that created the universe."
What does omnipotent 'mean?
People often don't mean the ability to make 1+1=3,
One could argue that God is limited by logic, while still being omnipotent.
For the Christian side though, I've always liked Job.
Reminds me of the Parable of the Invisible Gardener.
But such an argument is based on itself, and could be flipped to there being a Gardener, and yet the Atheist insisting every action is a mirage.
'Pro's ideal God, would behave as they want,
Yet my thoughts again go to Job.
'Is one more likely to have a divine visit in a different country?
If you have proof of even one divine visit, wouldn't such prove God?
If one has a more 'Deist view of God, whether a Deist God that 'has appeared or one that hasn't. Wouldn't such Deists be able to see God even in Atheist countries?
Who is to say what a divine visit 'is?
Do we 'know God is passive?
If God has some value or circumstance of the World, some self imposed rule on how they should act, does this mean they are not Omnipotent?
If I make a rule to myself not to stab random strangers in the street, it would not be true that I am incapable of stabbing random strangers in the street.
R1 Con
I thought the Socratic method was open ended questions that force the opponent to defeat themself?
I'd argue Con makes 'statements and assumptions a fair bit here.
I'm also doubtful that we are not caged into nature ourselves.
Some believers in God have nonstandard ideas of Free Will, see Calvinists.
"God doesn't make the world this way. We do.” - Rorsach
Though people disagree on 'whether God 'does or doesn't.
Hands on, people still argue God is Good or Bad,
Hands off, people still argue God is Good or Bad.
My mind returns to the Invisible Gardener,
What do we define as God, and how much can we conclude of objects that we cannot 'see.
Should it have been more likely that no X exists, earlier in history, before we could 'show them through a microscope?
Or because their definition years later would be slightly different?
Sometimes objects, laws, and people are identified peripherally, through logical necessity.
What makes something more or less likely?
(Thoughts here my own, not Cons)
My thoughts on Con R1
Con gives assertions on what God is, and seems to be identifying God as Truth?
Which I suppose is a bit of problem of Pros debate, though they 'did give a definition of God, it might be a bit broad.
Hm, is Con identifying God as a being?
While Con says what something 'is, Con doesn't say why such would exist, or what proof there is of such an existence.
Reason for Vote Part 2
R2 Moozer325
Are humans evil for creating new humans to live?
Or animals that we eat?
What did/does existence require to fulfill God's purpose?
Begging the question on my part, I suppose.
I wonder at how well a person would emphasize without pain?
One sees AI sometimes brutalized in fiction, as a necessity of sentience, but eh.
. . . There is more than physical pain I suppose, emotional pain for instance. . . Hm, if humans removed all pain from all organisms on Earth, would such 'also have been part of Gods plan?
But then, I don't think Pro 'required God to have a plan, just to be
"perfectly good, omnipotent and omniscient being that created the universe."
Which doesn't 'require plans really.
Still whether this theoretical God is hands on or not, it's not an either or. Can be a spectrum.
Does God need be responsible for every minutia?
Different Theists have different answers I'd think.
Omniquantism
http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff1400/fc01386.htm
Goes on for a few comics on the subject.
Pro R2 Concluding thoughts
"I acknowledge that the primary burden of proof rests with me. I must have sufficient evidence to prove that it is more likely God does not exist, and Con must either have sufficient evidence to prove that it is more likely that God does exist, or demonstrate that I have not provided enough evidence to support my side." - Pro R1
Hm, leaning towards Pro, but something feels off about debate.
R2 Con
Sub Gods?
Why are we Sub Gods?
I assume because of Con earlier arguments about our 'seemingly greater control other environment than other organisms on Earth.
Con seems to be taking hands off God approach.
And a bit Pantheist God approach?
Or do they maintain God is a person?
Okay, Con suggests that God exists separate of manmade religions,
But why does such prove God needs to exist?
"Con must either have sufficient evidence to prove that it is more likely that God does exist, or demonstrate that I have not provided enough evidence to support my side." - Pro R1
Hm, "or demonstrate that I have not provided enough evidence to support my side." is probably the one I'll try to factor at the end.
Reason for Vote Part 3
R3 Pro
One could argue we have pain and sorrow as training wheels.
Or that feeling happy all the time isn't everything.
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/n5TqCuizyJDfAPjkr/the-baby-eating-aliens-1-8
I'm again reminded of Job.
But admit to many such can come off as God works in mysterious ways, and that such an argument can not be satisfying to people.
Hm, 'has Pro proved God cannot exist?
Big part of their argument is identifying God as all loving, and arguing if God loved us they would do more.
One can rebut that God may be all powerful, but what does all powerful 'mean?
1+1=3?
If it means something less, then there can be reasons for our pain, like a parent's action or nonaction towards child in pain, necessary experience or part of existence. Lot of religious people believe in an after,
With how long some people have been dead, has their lives ended 'there? Never learning? Never experiencing? Never being something next or more?
(I'm still a materialist)
'Does Cons counterarguments hold up?
Con is not so much proving God exists to me, so much as arguing against Cons reasons for God not existing.
Well, Pro addressed that in this round, arguing it 'does have something to do with God, depends on Cons next round arguments.
R3 Con
Currently leaning towards Pro,
Socratic method might be a bad method when there are limited rounds in a debate.
It 'also can be flawed when you assume the opponent will give you the answer you want.
Reason for Vote Part 4
R4 Pro
New International Version
And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
https://biblehub.com/hebrews/11-6.htm
New International Version
This is why I speak to them in parables: “Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand.
https://biblehub.com/matthew/13-13.htm
Course it seems probable that 'some people would believe if they saw, or understand what they hear.
But maybe they wouldn't see or hear what was 'important.
Perhaps there is something in our uncertainty, yet wanting the right of existence.
"He [God] wants them to learn to walk and must therefore take away His hand; and if only the will to walk is really there He is pleased even with their stumbles. Do not be deceived, Wormwood. Our cause is never more in danger, than when a human, no longer desiring, but intending, to do our Enemy's will, looks round upon a universe from which every trace of Him seems to have vanished, and asks why he has been forsaken, and still obeys."
— The Screwtape Letters, letter VIII, C. S. Lewis
Serenity (2005)
"A world without sin."
Do you believe in a God that worked through evolution?
R4 Con
I'd say goes a bit off topic, even if it's positive about humans trying their best and doing right in the world.
Debate Conclusions
Pro has a specific idea of God they argue against, and assume a great amount of freedom by said God.
Con asserts God is a bunch of good stuff, and that humans are responsible for evil.
Pro argues God cannot be separate from human actions.
Pro argues why all the different ideas of religion, why does God not more obviously act and speak.
Con argues we all find God differently, and that they are something to find.
Arguments-wise, I don't think Pro was 'so great,
But they 'seemed more on topic and defining of what they meant by God.
Using You instead of U or Are instead of R,
Helps with legibility, Legibility to Pro.
Legibility 'matters for debates, as it better helps people read and understand your arguments,
So I'm also voting arguments to Pro,
Though 'something feels off about Pros arguments and definitions.
Conduct equal, sources equal.
Well, I'm pretty willful about living myself,
Even in theoretical circumstances.
But if I crashed on a desert island, and saw several other of my shipmates grilled alive over an open fire before being eaten alive (Just cooked a bit) by cannibals,
Then the cannibals are gesturing at me and the fire, and I happened to have a gun hidden, with one bullet,
Suicide 'might be tempting then.
@NoOneInParticular
For stealing of physical objects, does the punishment based based on how expensive the object you steal is?
One could steal an entire library of digital books,
Yet, it seems worse to steal a library of physical books.
. . . Since the digital books are 'copied, and the digital library is not deprived of it's books.
Public libraries are generally already free for the public though, they have to buy a copy I suppose.
But I'm rambling.
RFV Part 1
Title and Description
Ultimate at what?
System for general use in all avenues?
Generally best system for Economics?
What are you defining Capitalism 'as?
Right this second, lacking a definition, I'll go with
"an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market."
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism#h1
befairbruh R1
Might be defining capitalism as
"The capitalist concept is the creation of wealth from existing wealth."
Which I 'suppose, one can use to argue one see's such an activity in many species, ants collecting resources, or birds collecting twigs. The acquirement of resources/wealth.
I'm not sure a 'single person on an island could be capitalist though.
Could they be capitalist if there was not another human, but an animal, that they gave food in exchange for the animal doing something?
Such as when a dog guards sheep, or a pig gets slaughtered?
Seems a bit odd, ge- (Well, these are 'my thoughts, not Pros)
I'm not sold on the brain example, to me it feels like saying the demand for free movement causes water to move from place to place when opportunity for movement is presented, such as a hole in a water bottle, therefore water is a capitalist.
Yeah I know Pro is talking about Capitalism 'Market 'Laws, which is different than just saying Capitalism.
. . . It's 'not that I disagree with using Capitalism as a lens, it just feels a bit forced to argue that 'everyone should see through said lens, or that various systems should be called capitalistic.
Cells in the body interact and have different paths, connect with one another, I admit.
Should I see,
"everything in nature is also a competition"
To mean that Pro is also defining Capitalism as competition?
Pro again uses "a form of capitalism where goods are created from existing ones."
I'm just thinking on how to define Capitalism for this debate, which 'maybe should be common sense, but I'm slow sometimes.
Shadowcritique R1
I think Pro is saying one sees the existence of wealth and trade can be seen in many avenues of existence. I think they use the cow and human examples as baseline, before expanding the concept to other avenues.
Which Oxford Dictionary
"Thank you for visiting Oxford English Dictionary
To continue reading, please sign in below or purchase a subscription. After purchasing, please sign in below to access the content."
https://www.oed.com/dictionary/capitalism_n2?tab=meaning_and_use
Nooo! I hate having to sign into every (Redacted) website to use their (Redacted) services!
Well, anyway,
Con seems to be defining Capitalism as,
"capitalism is an economic system rooted in competition, it is the act of letting the market rule economy, where everyone can do as they please with the recourses they have."
I don't find the argument that nature is focused on survival, convincing.
Birds can collect shiny objects, cats sometimes play with then kill animals even if not hungry, extend their 'territory for reasons of comfort.
A main focus of capitalism 'is often survival, though it can be used more recreationally.
While I suppose nature 'is a community,
I'm not so sure about equality,
Else would one call some rich billionaire a Communist, just because he's going to die someday?
Capitalists 'can crush other people just for being competition, but so can animals,
Territory fights,
Also a bear might eat the bee honey.
Common ownership of the body, is an interesting view for the body, by Con.
Con argues the limits of Freedom.
Round1 Thoughts
I'm still not sure if Pro is arguing one can 'see Capitalism in everything, or if one should try to 'be Capitalistic in more systems.
I can a bit go either way so far, One can see degrees of Capitalism or Communism in various systems perhaps.
Though one might argue BoP is on Pro
RFV Part 2
befairbruh R2
Continuing with their definition of capitalism as,
"the use of one resource leads to the obtention of a new one"
This could be bad for Con, as I don't recall them defining or arguing against Pros definition of capitalism,
It 'wouldn't be so bad for Con though maybe, if they had posted a round 2.
Though one can argue they argued against Pros definition of Capitalism in round 1 by disagreeing on how Pro 'applied their definition.
I don't quite agree with defining Capitalism as the transformation/use of energy for various purposes and/or more wealth/energy.
One sees another possible definition of Capitalism by Pro,
"nature is survival of the fittest so is a free economy market."
Pro makes various comparisons of how they see Capitalism in nature.
Pro argue Capitalism results in better overall situation, though I'm not convinced that humans couldn't control an ecosystem better than leaving animals and plants to themselves.
We usually want something 'specific out of nature,
And while nature may fall into niches and cycles, I don't think there's any 'Objective specific 'Good Cycle.
. . . I think back to Con argument about outside action, medicine for humans acting on their own bodies.
Which I can imagine Pro as arguing to be Capitalism again, because of humans using resources and their body as a resources, to increase resources.
An argument I am not convinced by, one can apply lenses over various situations, I think that Pro is using Capitalism too broadly defined.
But again, it's a problem for Con that they did not post a round 2.
I also think Pros,
Your Freedom to swing your fist, stops before it hits my face, definition of Freedom,
A bit of a cheat, cheap cop out.
It's not as though wolves don't eat the Elk.
Yes, Pro did not use the fist example 'exactly.
Shadowcritique R2
Missed, and missed opportunities for rebuttals or strengthening own argument.
My concluding thoughts.
I think Pro was better able to push their definition of Capitalism than Con was able to push their definition of Communism.
If Con had been around for round 2, maybe they could have hit harder against Pros definitions of Capitalism.
Pro used their time to further define Capitalism as a concept rather than pure human to human trade and control of private goods.
I'm not 'convinced by Pro,
But I think they won the debate by their definition pushing, with not 'enough pushback by Con.
Missing Round 2 hurt Con.
Both sides legible.
Conduct would go to Pro by Con missing a round.
Sources, Tie, neither 'quite used them.
Wel, my vote to Pro then.
RFV Part 1
Title and Description,
I think Abortion is vaguely defined here.
WellThatsIntellectual R1
0. Abortion 'does have ties to bodily autonomy, personal freedom, and healthcare,
But I 'really think you should have defined and set the limits of what you mean by abortion in the description 'or round 1. . . But you 'do state what 'you mean by abortion in comment 4 of debate, I 'suppose.
1. I'm not sure bodily autonomy 'is non-negotiable. We've had the draft before in America (Not that I am saying I agree or disagree with the draft)
I can imagine people forcing another person to let them on their boat, if the first people's boat sinks. Good Samaritan laws (Not that I am saying I agree or disagree with such)
Other examples I imagine.
2. People 'do argue various cases medically warrant abortion.
3. Orphanages 'do exist as an option. Not that such worked out too well for Nicolae Ceaușescu and Romania, but one could argue particulars.
But Question is often when is a human life a human life.
4. Eh, some Dad's don't 'want a kid either, don't want the bills or obligation. Though of course 'does effect a woman more. But that's biology, war often going to effect men more, but that's biology.
South was economically hurt by not having slaves and didn't have the North's infrastructure. Doesn't mean they 'should have slaves. As one might argue women being worse off doesn't mean they 'should abort an unborn.
5. True, it's a mental and physical drain. I'm reminded of the South Park Episode with the 'really late term abortion Cartman's mom considered, eight years a bit late.
But of course Pro 'does say in comments 'when they think an abortion should be done.
But for some Pro Life people, a life is a life.
6. While there 'is an argument for regulating bad behaviors, some people still hold to a dislike of normalizing said action, dislike participating in said action, or practice Deontological Ethics on the question.
7. Privacy 'is important, but some people still like child services checking on some parents.
Pro brings up relevant considerations, my contrary thoughts aside.
befairbruh R1
1. Brings up the Pro Life high valuation of the unborn.
2. Brings up the Pro Life valuation, and that other methods can/could be pursued.
3. Brings up the Pro Life valuation, and argues for trying other methods.
One could argue such methods are not always easily available in society though.
4. Suggests societal considerations that could be made for women.
5. Brings up that some people are mentally harmed or haunted by their abortions.
This one a 'bit arguable, as societies vary, as well as it lacking statistics, but Pro's also lacked statistics.
It also lacks a bit in 'physical harm, compared to Pro's, though mental pain 'can result in physical harm.
6. Suggests focus on education and healthcare rather than focusing on making the practice legal.
'Questionable how well it would 'work though.
7. Brings up the Pro Life valuation.
I think Con manages to address all of Pros points, though Pro is still capable of addressing and blunting Cons arguments.
Hm, how does one address a difference in value?
I suppose one can disprove other side, Pro could claim/argue that Abortions done early enough are not killing people.
I suppose one can point out contrary goals and actions, as Pro did with 6. Just need to further argument.
RFV Part 2
WellThatsIntellectual R2
I see various religions and beliefs about abortion,
But then does debate not then become regional on whether people would agree of disagree?
Pro says when fetus starts to get important organs, is when it gets it's soul.
It seems a but of a jump to me.
Pro argues for killing (By there perspective) ensouled fetuses (24 weeks), as mercy killings.
I think Pro could have done better in mercy killing argument by giving specific examples of said unborn. Fetuses who are expected to die in agonizing pain within a week of birth, or are missing 95% of their brain or something.
Though the most extreme of Pro Lifes might still disagree, it 'would allow 'some abortions.
I still think not 'specifically defining what type of abortions in the debate description was a mistake, but Pro arguably 'is describing what they meant in Round 2.
A 'problem though, is that Pro has not yet addressed Cons arguments in Round 1.
Cons arguments aren't 'perfect, but in my view they 'do Address Pros arguments, Con's arguments in Round 1 have faults, same as Pros arguments, but Con has addressed Pro's arguments. Con has not quite fully.
befairbruh R2
Makes arguments on how some religions ban or discourage abortions.
Con 'still has problem of comment section number 4.
"One: An abortion within 24 weeks of the pregnancy
Two: If the parent finds out that the child is severely disabled and/or severely ill after the 24th week, they should still have the right to abort the child."
R3 and R4
No show for WellThatsIntellectual.
My conclusions
Hm, should I assume debate is whether said 2 abortions should be legal in all countries? This country? That countries 'ought take this view?
I think Pro has stronger argument for the severely disabled and/or severely ill unborn.
But that Con makes sufficient arguments against "An abortion within 24 weeks of the pregnancy" for various reasons stated in R1.
I think Pro 'could have argued against Cons arguments in round 1, but they were not. Though religion 'was addressed in R2 by Pro, so did Con.
Anyway, my vote to Con. Arguments.
Neither used sources.
Both understandable.
Pro missing rounds, a conduct hit.
I'm not against Federal government 'existing.
I'm just wary, and dislike some of it's past decisions and powers.
No worries on sources,
It just helps one's argument if they having backing to what they claim as policy or statistics.
Though people still argue about 'true statistics or what the statistics 'mean.
I 'was curious about the white descendants,
Seems reasonable enough logic.
Though I still don't like Reparations long after the fact much.
I 'do recognize how some situations, such as freed slaves and their descendants, were not 'fixed after being freed and given 'small reparations.
What with the Jim Crow, KKK, Race Riots, and so on.
. . . Partially I dislike Big Government a bit.
Partially it's my view that it doesn't need to be 'Reparations, to help descendants.
Partially other things, as well I imagine, but I don't like examining myself and my reasons for views, too much, too much of the time.
(RFV Part 1)
Sunshineboy217 R1
Debate lacks clear definitions or examples of reparations.
Where do reparations come from?
I'm doubtful that American government would only take money from whites, whites descended from earlier America, or descended from slave traders, owners, southerners, people who traded with southerners, so on.
More likely it seems taxes would come from 'everyone.
It's more the 'Government doing Reparations, than purely whites.
Though of course people pay taxes, including American blacks, with no ancestors who were slaves in America. Or blacks who made good, and had ancestors who were slaves in America.
But I assume neither group would receive reparations.
. . . Personally I think they'd be best off just helping the poorest in America, regardless of race, if their intention is to raise the lower class from their situations.
. . . Which as Sunshineboy217 argues, might be more along the line of,
"Entrepreneurial encouragement plans, business investments, and more government investing into the infrastructure of black communities."
Though again such is for a specific group.
borz_kriffle R1
Describes Reparations more distinctly than Pro,
But I think it would aid Borz to use a source. Yes they said NAACP, and I can Google that, but direct hyperlinks can be helpful to check sources.
Are reparations considered something infinite? I 'think we have done Reparations before?
Is there some percent of the descendants that must leave the lower class, before the debt is considered paid?
Why not just do government programs for all poor people? It's been a while since slavery, as Pro says in Round 1.
R1 End Thoughts
I lean a bit towards Pro, as I do not see why there is a need to pick out the descendants of American slaves, for reparations.
I don't like the idea of making or allowing others to be an eternal victim class. Though of course I 'realize this is not what Reparations argues for. I think.
Debate may turn, based on Cons ability to clearly define Reparations or argue that American government has not fulfilled it's responsibility.
Or if Pro can argue the time has passed and the descendants situation has greatly changed.
People have come to America with 'nothing, and made something. Have not the descendants had that chance as well?
Some would argue no, that even after the Civil War, society has unfairly targeted them.
(RFV Part 2)
Sunshineboy217 R 2
Hm, is there a difference between Reparations and helping X group of people who are disproportionately lower class in America?
Eh, I think there is, so I won't ding Pro for supporting Reparations of a type, as it can be argued they aren't reparations.
Though I still think America would be better off 'just helping the poorer people in it. Well, if you go for Socialism I mean.
. . . Pro makes arguments that America has addressed it's part in slavery through previous actions.
borz_kriffle R2
Eh, I'm not sure that's an 'emotional argument, so much as a self interest and/or fairness argument. Though the self interest argument would only work for white voters.
Borz makes a fair point, I'm pretty sure America already spends money on various public works and social programs. So one 'could simply cut various programs by X amount, and redirect that spending.
But then they could cut spending and redirect it to 'various causes. Must be hard being in charge of the budget if one is 'trying to help people fairly, so many.
Though I 'still think Borz would be helped by a hyperlink, It 'really helps Cons case that Pro is not objecting to Cons claims of what reparations will or could consist of.
Not that Con is 'wrong, but it is possible there are 'other suggestions as to what reparations could be. If Pro allows Con to always suggest a solution that Pro has argued for themself in earlier rounds,
Then Reparations becomes acceptable by some of Pros own arguments of how government should help lower class descendants.
Con makes decent argument about descendants still being effected by the ripples of slavery.
His argument that nearly all the members of government owned slaves should have a source, but his argument will still hurt Pro unless 'Pro addresses it.
"Of the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention, about 25 owned slaves. Many of the framers harbored moral qualms about slavery. Some, including Benjamin Franklin (a former slaveholder) and Alexander Hamilton (who was born in a slave colony in the British West Indies) became members of anti-slavery societies."
https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-resources/teaching-resource/historical-context-constitution-and-slavery#:~:text=Of%20the%2055%20delegates%20to,members%20of%20anti%2Dslavery%20societies.
But bah I say, slavery existed many places in older days, (Further Rant Redacted)
Still, Pro 'did make arguments that America has already paid prices for slavery.
R2 Thoughts,
I'm starting to lean towards Con, due to Con seeming to have greater control of the definition of Reparations in the debate.
And some of Pros earlier arguments suggesting methods that matched with Con's suggested definitions of Reparations.
Admittedly Pro might not 'call their suggested actions Reparations, but I don't recall them arguing that.
(RFV Part 3)
Sunshineboy217 R3
You would 'Really be helped out here with sources or a definition of Reparations.
Con has given the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People as a source for the definition of Reparations.
By not defining a 'specific Reparations actions, you leave yourself open to 'many types of actions, not just giving descendants all "a few thousand dollars"
Eh, it's true that white people have been poor, then poor, or rich then poor, middle class and either way.
But if Con brings up various ways throughout history that society has discriminated against blacks, then your case is hurt.
Jim Crow as example, is nearer to now than the Civil War, as well as other nearer examples.
Side thought, would people with white skin that are descended from black slaves get reparations if they are poor?
Or white people descended from white slaves?
What about th-(Rant redacted)
Hm, I suppose Jim Crow isn't 'specifically slavery, but it 'is linked to it.
It's like tossing someone in a pit, then helping them out, but they're actually in a bigger pit with walls that you quickly build and oiled after you helped them out of the first pit.
Then you refuse to help them get over the walls, because you only said you would help them get out of the pit. Maybe.
But these are my own weird argument thoughts.
Eh, evil can be an overused word. That ignores context and subjectivity. But evil slaver argument by Pro doesn't factor much into debate anyway. And I don't care to defend slavers right this instant.
Eh, building of America can be a group effort.
But I get that Pro is trying to argue against debt to American slaves, I just don't think he's doing it very well.
Side thought, Ever watch Remember the Titans (2000)?
Time period and racism it depicts is closer than Reconstruction.
. . . But then Reparations 'usually 'does argue about Reparations for 'Slavery, not Reparations for not allowing same race schools during X period.
Though some might argue that parts of American society and Government have 'constantly been doing Reparations for that, by various actions such as same Race schools.
borz_kriffle R 3
SOURCES!
"The confederacy’s 11 states had 316,632 slave owners out of a free population of 5,582,222. This equals 5.67 percent of the free population of the confederacy were slave owners."
“That, however, does not tell us the extent of slave ownership. To better understand the extent of slavery’s impact, we need to realize a slave owner was the one person in a family who legally owned slaves. That person was usually the patriarch. There would be a spouse and sons and daughters who directly benefited from the family’s slave ownership and who stood to inherit enslaved people,” wrote Mackey."
"So, according to the Census of 1860, 30.8 percent of the free families in the confederacy owned slaves. That means that every third white person in those states had a direct commitment to slavery."
https://socialequity.duke.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/8.10.20.pdf
Random source I Googled, I imagine people disagree on the subject.
Con makes argument that focusing on specific lives can address inequality by pointing it out explicitly. Presumably while still believing All Lives Matter, but presumably thinks certain lives should be focused on during some events.
It's not a bad argument.
I'm not really 'invested in the argument about 'Who 'Built America, as I think everyone did.
R3 Thoughts
Heavily leaning towards Con, I think Pro has gotten a bit distracted,
Though I 'personally 'still disagree with modern reparations for the descendants of earlier American slavery.
(RFV Part 4)
Sunshineboy217 R 4
Your problem Pro, is that you've allowed Con to define some long term solutions as being Reparations (I think), not that he's 'wrong about said definition.
But by failing to specifically define Reparations at the start, you allow many types of Reparations. And are better off arguing against Reparations for other reasons.
Such as your arguments about it deepening divides or being long ago.
I think debate would have gone better without Con saying "emotional angle" or "Unicorns"
Not that I think such are highly insulting, but they can be taken that way.
Not really great for Pro either to say opponent is "twisting" their words, again not 'meant as insulting. But people often don't 'think they are twisting their opponents words, and sometimes they are not, sometimes they are. But there are more diplomatic ways to address their takes on your arguments.
. . . Though some people like straight approach, they're not 'wrong. I'm just indirect at times perhaps.
Pro makes argument that the descendants have had time to get out of post slavery conditions.
borz_kriffle Round 4
Con makes arguments about necessity at times of short and long solutions.
. . . Though I might argue earlier reparations 'were the short solution, and longer solutions, such as property given to former slaves, and later on right to vote.
Though personally 'I think (Rant redacted)
Round 4
Not much said here changes my leaning towards voting Con, for reasons I've already said.
Round 5 Just doing both.
I forget if profanity is illegal on this site, I suppose it could be a conduct hit,
But I 'think conduct hits are used more for 'insults.
Profanity is more a matter of 'style, which people like or dislike,
Though 'usually I think people dislike it if it is used too much.
I don't think Con insulted Pro or called him a white supremacist.
I don't think Con 'wins for Pro accusing him of such or reporting him.
But I might add it slightly to the scale of Conduct towards Con winning.
Pro can be upset and make what I think are mistakes in perception.
It's not as big a Conduct hit as if it would be 'if Pro was insulting Con.
Well, my Reasons for Vote should be clear enough. I think.
@Round 2
I don't think it's 'bad to use religion in debate.
But I think it works best when one's audience and/or opponent shares your religious values.
The arguments that appeal to people, depend on their values,
Even for something such as guns,
People will use different arguments in different countries, I assume.
I think you have a point,
And that people 'ought be more evenhanded with their criticism, praise, and satire.
But I also lean towards a lot of 'legal freedom, of people's rights to be jerks.
Short of events such as shouting Fire, in a packed theater.