Total votes: 114
Forfeit by Pro.
Bit impressive in a way, how much effort Con put into the debate,
Either knowing another language or looking up translations,
Looking at opponent profile of debates.
I considered conduct hit for
"My opponent sucks." Con Round 2
But eh.
Concession and forfeiture.
Con forfeited.
Con is around for the debate,
Con argues organization can come about 'by creativity.
While Pro had some interesting 'initial ideas, they failed to flesh them out in the debate.
Conversation, more than a debate.
Short sentences, assertions, assumptions.
Full forfeit.
No arguements.
No arguements.
Pro made arguments, Con didn't.
Never believed in astrology myself, but it can be kind of fun to read the paper and one's sign anyway.
Generic advice or not, it's a fun idea that it 'could really apply to oneself,
Can get one to think on whether said fortune really 'could apply to one's own life or not, and how.
Sometimes the generic advice 'does apply, nice motivation to think on life.
Or relax if it claims you'll have a nice day.
Just a roll of the dice, to take a cue from.
"extreme wealth" seems to me a bit 'vague.
Pro makes decent arguments on how wealth power can consolidate within individuals, the 'effects such can have on policy and environment.
Con counters with the existence of government and society, effects of unions, government monopoly. And their effect billionaires or not on the environment.
Argues a 'need for capitalists effect on economies.
Pro argues the unfairness of the wealth gap,
Con argues the fairness of equal opportunity.
Con argues that unless policies are enacted globally, the rich will often leave for better ports. Additionally they argue the amount of investments by American investors.
Pro argues for progressive tax and that countries 'other than America can have the money for nothing.
But if such 'occurs, Capitalists have less 'reason to invest in other countries,
And again, there's the problem of entire 'world agreeing on policy.
Pro argues exploitation,
Con argues Unions.
Con argues the rich sometimes lose their money.
Pro argues they do not mean billionaires need not 'be,
Con argues given the number of people who are billionaires and their wealth compared to others, one would 'have to get rid of the billionaires to get rid of the extreme difference.
RFV
I lean Con, I think they're able to counter many of Pros arguments and attack the foundation of the debate.
But, people have been complaining about my votes recently, and I don't feel motivated enough to post further RFV. . .
It's not as though Pro 'doesn't raise decent concerns, and if it was a partial win in arguments system, I'd only vote a partial win to Con, but eh.
Forfeiture.
Concession.
Con Forfeited.
Con Forfeited.
Con was not around, so it's a forfeit.
RFV Final Thoughts
I find Pros arguments on 'progress highly convincing,
But as Con says, what proof or arguments do they have on Communism being achieved?
Pro 'does point out flaws in Capitalism, and appeal to the 'ideals of Communism.
Personally I find Con the more convincing,
Due to their arguments on achievability of systems, and what is contained in those systems leading to ends.
I think Pro had good arguments on desirability and progress, but think they had a bigger burden of proof, not by the debates 'rules.
But by the 'nature and history of Communism,
Yes the description negates bad history examples, but Con appealing to the successes of Capitalism necessitated arguments and proofs of achievability of Communism.
In a different voting system, I'd vote Con only 'partial victory.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/12859-categorical-votes-optimal-points?page=2
#44
Arguments Con,
Sources, neither side 'used sources, or made 'examples that can be seen as unbiased. Nations are complicate.
Sources Tie,
Legibility, I lean Pro, I found their arguments easier to keep track of by their bolding the gist of what they were responding to, and responding more in general.
I was able to 'read Cons easily enough, but it's easy to get lost when so many individual sentences are responded to.
Though I understand such a method, one wants to address 'much when responding.
DART says,
"Awarded as a penalty for excessive abuse committed by the other side, wherein sections of the debate become illegible or at least comparatively burdensome to decipher."
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
I was able to decipher Con easily enough,
Legibility Tie,
Conduct, no insults or bad behavior I thought, tie.
Additional RFV in comments #5, #4, #3
Final Thoughts RFV
I'm surprised, glancing at comments and votes, I assumed Con argued against the physical sports, or 'barely brought up non physical sports.
. . . But less Physical Sports were Cons 'main argument.
Not insurmountable, but Pro 'needed to,
Either argue sports are only physical sports,
Or argue skin deep discrimination is fine. Though, I think sex is a 'bit 'more than skin deep.
. . .
. . .I 'suppose Pro could 'also shift the debate, arguing "Female Sports" to be understood as Sports set aside 'only for women due to 'differences.
By such an argument Female only groups such as females only chess, could be understood to not 'truly be "Female Sports"/
'Or they can argue psychological/social differences in sex, 'even in 'trans. Argue sex to be more than skin deep.
'Too many times Pro took certain questions at face value, many in society agree with Pro, but a problem is a 'significant population 'don't.
Therefore the arguments 'against 'must be made and laid out.
Pro argued the physical well, but did not address Cons stance.
Arguments to Con.
Sources tie, due to Con undercutting Pros stance, the majority of Pros sources 'for his arguments are undercut.
They were still relevant to part of debate, and Con didn't make sources a 'large part of their own arguments I think. But Con 'did have some sources.
Both sides legible, and good 'enough conduct.
Additional RFV in comments 20, 19, 18.
I don't 'think I've ever listened to a Drake song, and fortunately as Con forfeited his rounds, I don't have to.
I've heard some of Eminem's songs before, bit more explicit than I'd like.
Not 'really my genre of music, but some 'parts of his music can be catchy.
Can't say I know anything about him 'or Drake as people.
RFV
One never knows a person's personal life, and most of the debate 'was argued.
Conduct Tie.
Sources, 'explain the subject, more than 'proof Pros side.
Sources Tie.
Legibility, Both sides were legible, and easy to follow.
Pro had a nice 1,2,3,4,5 but still, close enough for both, tie.
Arguments to Pro,
Though, I think the 'framing of the debate missed a 'little.
Within what 'context is Dorian irredeemable?
If immortal by the painting, that would have been a 'lot of context.
If immortal by soul, well, there's a lot of potential context there as well.
But while Con 'touched on time, they were not as explicit as I would have liked.
I did not find Cons arguments of 'attempted redemption by attacking the painting convincing.
But 'did find their arguments on 'potential regret and conscience never lost in Dorian, good.
The forfeited round hurt a bit for Con, in the sense that 'perhaps more could have been said by Con, to get debate to a tie.
But my vote goes to Pro, for their arguments of the depth of Dorians corruption,
Their arguments of Dorian 'not having regret (Tied up with Con there),
And their arguments of Dorians behavior being self serving with no thought of altruism.
Further thoughts for RFV, in comments #4, #3, #2
Title
Eh, not always the 'best nation in all ways, but I'm not sure I'd define America as evil.
Description
N/A
Pro Round 1
Pro paints a bleak picture of many of the worst actions of America.
. . . I suppose a defense against this can be context, progress, comparison with other countries, what a country was in the past is not necessarily what it is today.
Con Round 1
True, 'some of the decline of Native Americans can be attributed to Europe.
But not 'all of it.
I'm not sure forced Cultural change is a 'great argument, but it is 'an argument.
Con 'does do better with examples of Native American culture, that goes against our and a number of past American values. Though I think it's debatable 'how 'many Native Americans acted in such ways.
I don't think Reservations are a 'great argument, but it 'does argue against Pro claims of 'complete genocide.
. . . Con continues in this vein with other examples in American history. Arguing America has often been a lesser evil, if not a 'good nation. Involved in a number of conflicts out of 'attempts for right.
Con has Sources.
Pro Round 2
Forfeited.
Con Round 2
States self to be present.
Pro Round 3
Forfeited.
Con Round 3
Argues some coups can be for greater good.
RFV
I did not see Con address the slavery argument, but Pro did not further expand upon it.
Con was around for all three rounds of the debate, and addressed the bulk of Pros arguments, while Pro did not address Cons.
RFV Thoughts Final.
Wisdom, Communication, and potentiality for a more positive impact.
Communication to Pro, for argument on the teachings enduring so long, and arguments against Christianity's sudden spread.
It 'was close though, and I did not find the multiple languages by Pro or the number of followers by Con, convincing arguments.
Wisdom and Potential for a More Positive Impact,
Pro focused a lot more on the here and now, rather than the hereafter.
Con took a decent but dangerous approach on 'proving Christianity true, while they have arguments against Krishna being true, 'and some arguments of impressive accomplishments of Christianity's growth and spread,
It's a 'high bar to 'prove one religion over another, to individuals 'not of a religion or another.
The Bible 'does have here and now wisdom, and there 'is value in the hereafter, to the people who believe in such.
And I imagine there 'are 'many people who are spiritual and believe in a hereafter. . .
But I think it needed more argument than Pro had to give for the here and now.
Arguments to Pro.
Sources were more basic knowledge than argument boosters, tie.
Both sides legible.
Both sides conduct, good enough.
Additional thoughts and RFV in comments #21, #20, #19 of debate.
There's something about this debate, a vagueness to it, that inclines me to a tie.
While Con raises a number of examples of Christian sects and perhaps cultures, that do not follow all of Christ's teaching, or add doctrines of their own.
Pro argues that while there are many sects of Christianity, a common core of them is following Christ and his teachings.
While Con 'does argue many Christians do 'not follow his teachings as well as they 'might (Interpretation of them aside)
Pro argues, “Christianity as a whole” there is no such thing". . .
I 'do think that was an important aspect of the debate, There are Christians across the 'world, that I think argument is needed,
More than 51% of Christians?
Christians in X country? state?
All Christians worldwide? Some core beliefs in near all of them that don't match to Christ's teachings?
Con 'does raise interesting points,
Such as a 'lot of Christianity coming after Christ, I'm not sure they 'called it Christianity while he was alive.
. . Course if one takes Jesus as divine, might be some passages in the Bible where he leaves further teaching and doctrine 'to his disciples.
(Not sarcasm) I'm 'really not well read on the Bible, I 'know he had disciples, and it talks about the resurrection and all, I just don't remember it well.
. . But these are my thoughts, not Pros.
I think Pro raises excellent criticisms of some of Cons arguments, such as what 'is a follower of Christ, core teachings.
And Pro 'begins to question the 'foundation of the debate itself, in round two, the 'final round.
I think Pro had the upper hand, but the number of rounds proved a bit limiting to the debate, possibly due to foundation of debate, definitions and such.
My votes at tie. Both did well, and while I think Pro had an edge, I think there was arguments of Con that they did not fully address.
Additional thoughts in comment #10 of debate.
Con presents a more detailed and coherent argument, while I think Pros arguments were too sparse requiring more interpretation than Con.
I also think Pro mistook some of Cons arguments.
Cons arguments were more backed by explanation of how Hard Wired individuals might come to be, or have difficulty changing.
While Pros arguments were, people can just choose anything.
While Pro isn't 'wrong, people 'do make choices throughout their lives, and 'can choose even difficult choices.
Pro's arguments went into backing their own arguments less.
Longer RFV in comments #7 and #6 of debate.
Title
Hm
Description
Often good to have one.
Pro Round 1
"For truly good and truly evil people to exist, there must be free will."
Must there be?
'True' Good or Evil?
Even if made into something by external factors, can something/one not still be evil?
A viscous dog is still a viscous dog, even if it was abused into such a state.
Though one may feel pity for the dogs past, and empathy for their current self.
A friendly dog is still a friendly dog, even if it was cared into such a state.
Though one may be glad of the friendliness, and mindful of keeping up requirements for such.
Still, Pro makes argument that 'choice and free will is needed, but argues they do not exist, thus no good or evil.
I think some more time defining good and evil might have been good.
Or argument why free will is needed for such.
Con Round 1
Seems to argue that Free Will is not necessary to define people as Good or Evil,
That by their place in context of a society, they would be good or evil.
A problem for Con might be that they are not 'True Good or 'True Evil,
But Pro didn't 'describe what 'True Good or 'True Evil was.
While Con has defined Good and Evil as related to societies definitions, I think.
I'm pretty sure there are people that would disagree with Con about God and Free Will,
But Con didn't base their arguments on this, but rather their arguments that Free Will was not important in defining people as good or evil.
. . .
I 'suppose one could argue that if an individual had evil actions and evil thoughts,
They could argue they are not evil, it was Nurture and Fate that made them such,
But what 'remains of a person, when you separate them from Nature and Nurture?
Anyway, my vote to Con.
They more fully explained their thinking, and made counterarguments against Pro.
I wonder 'why make such a debate?
Fishing for answers perhaps?
Title, Description
Objectivity, Objective to what?
Pro Round 1
(1) Well, we still see 'something, and realize 'something is visible to perceivers of X quality.
An apple has redness, but, I'd suppose it 'also has other colors, depending on the spectrums one is viewing it in.
An apple has redness, but put in the shade, it also has darkness.
That an item has many qualities, do not prevent those qualities from 'being, when the right variables are at hand?
(2) Hm, but surely media can be more or less subjective?
'Depending on what they are trying to be objective 'to.
Giving both sides equal opportunity to state their case, for instance.
And if Objectivity is something one can be closer or farther from, surely it exists, even if we can not 'reach it?
We can not 'land upon the surface of the sun, and 'touch it's 'surface, but do we 'need to get 'that close, to understand the sun exists?
(3) Hm, but 'still specific neurons and thoughts fired, before and when a person spoke.
Certain sounds are made at certain volume, intonation.
Language like a cypher a code, we don't always get all the information, or are using a different code. But there 'was an objective meaning spoken, even if we can no longer access it.
Hm, still. . . I'd say Pro could have done a better job by defining Objectivity in the description of the debate, or at 'least Round 1.
What am I to take him to 'mean by Objectivity? Or that it does not exist?
By their arguments, are they arguing that we will always view different objects, information, and concepts differently? Never 'truly seeing the same item?
Are they saying items have no one single appearance?
. . . Apples are red, for instance, Pro is arguing that we 'cannot say that apples are red, because they 'are not, they only 'appear that way to 'some. So we cannot say anything is X, because nothing 'is X. Everything is XABCD- ad infinitum?
. . . Course many people find math objective. . .
Well, still thinking, maybe Pro will say more later on.
Con Round 1
(1) Argues the thing and it's properties still exist, and that by for instance technology, more aspects of a thing can be seen.
(2) Argues truth can be more known, depending on what methods one uses.
(3) Argues of 'specific meaning inherent in certain words.
Argues human errors do not mean what they are trying to get at, does not exist.
Pro Round 2
And looks like round 3 is out as well.
Con Round 2
Continues to make decent arguments, building on what they said in round 1.
. . . I'm not too familiar with the concept of Objectivism myself,, I 'think there are various 'forms of Objectivism or the denial of such.
Might be some types are easier or harder to argue for.
Pro Round 3
Forfeit.
Con Round 3
Argues for the 'existence of things, even if we do not always reach them.
. . .
I 'suppose one 'might argue against Con that we can not 'reach certain levels of certainty,
So in such a sense Objectivity might not exist 'for 'us,
Even if we think there are some Objective Ideals.
But Con managed to dismantle Pros '1 round of argument.
And participated in 'each round.
Arguments Con.
Sources didn't really play a part so tie, though I 'know some people argue when X% of round have been forfeited, all points can just go to the non forfeiter.
Legibility Con, as I am unsure of Pros 'meaning of Objectivity.
Conduct Con, for participation in all rounds, and not forfeiting any.
Title?
Air transport is 'still not safer now?
Hm,
Comments #6 "not safer than any other common transports road, sea, track."
Pro
Pros claims are highly suspect without sources,
And many of their claims run counter to what seems to me common sense.
Climate for example, can play a large role in car crashes and being stranded, ice, snow.
Con
What's the 1 in Xillion chance of dying in a car crash?
I get that more people have died in cars and trains, but I'd figure more people use cars and trains?
RFV
Con didn't directly counter Pro's arguments, though arguably they were largely addressed by Cons argument that statistically less people have died from flying in recent years.
Con did have 'a source.
Both sides seem to have forfeited a bit.
Legibility hurt Pro a bit I think, though they clarified the title in the comments.
I also think their grammar could improve a bit, though I can only speak 'one language myself, and even in English, my grammar isn't great.
Opinion
I think Con is right, and that planes are currently generally safer.
Perhaps because of how regulated and monitored they are by companies, rather than individuals.
I would change sentences such as
"In this world neither transport is not 100% safe like cars , trains. But I want to say Air transport is not safer for many reasons."
to
In this world neither cars nor trains are 100%. But I want to say Air transport has many reasons it is less safe.
And again, I've poor grammar, but I think Pro's grammar still harms their arguments some.
RFV
(See Comments #29 and #28 of this debate, for a lengthier RFV)
Pro worked the angle of how much/hard change is pursued, 'very well.
And managed to counter many of Cons arguments such as it still causing damage, or the value of individuality.
Con I think made errors, by not more pursuing their sources/citations of pushback damage.
As well as neglecting making arguments of why/what makes Individuality and Homosexuality Good or Neutral values.
Con forfeited, while Pro made arguments in every round.
Pro offers arguments of the value of uniformity in a school, in an evening out of circumstance between students, and that it adds a sense of professionalism of value to schools.
Con argues many forms of inequality would still exist in small but telling ways.
Argues uniforms can stifle individuality, of value to creativity.
Argues uniforms 'cosmetic change, not impactful enough to matter.
Debate is kind of a tit for tat, though I lean towards Con in arguments.
The debate is short, while Con is able to highlight ways uniforms might fall short, and other aspects of education as if not more important.
It is two opposing theories, but both with value.
Even if Pro's benefits are not 'fully received, one can see 'perhaps value in uniforms.
Even if Con is correct in 'possible drawbacks to uniforms such as individuality/"core driver of critical thinking and self-confidence", without proof it remains contrasted with 'Pro's theory.
. . .
I imagine clothes are cheaper than phones, so possible that rich are able to shine more in uniform schools, than non uniform schools, but I couldn't say.
Still, people are able to dress how they like 'outside of school, individuality and flaunting can be had there, but school remains business.
. . . I 'do think that "engaging teachers, supportive environments, and emotional safety" would have a bigger impact than uniforms.
But small changes aren't 'bad, just for being not as 'big as other changes.
Though question of how 'useful uniforms would be, is still a bit in the air.
. . .
'Pro is the only one with sources, but their sources are not easily 'found by voters.
Even after a bit of Google, I'm not able to find the exact quote and web pages, though I am not saying that they do not exist, or that a person more intelligent that I could not find them.
So, I'm voting a tie,
Though I lean towards Pro, due to their sources, but because difficult to find, tie.
The shortness of the debate limits either side from 'doing as much as they might like.
If Pro's sources had been more findable, I think I would have voted Pro, as the sources could have strengthened their arguments 'truths.
If Con had included sources, I might have voted Con, as the sources could have strengthened their arguments 'truths.
If longer, or more rounds, could have gone either way.
Con forfeited.
RFV Short
Conduct equal.
Legibility equal.
Sources both backed each sides arguments.
Arguments to Con for attacking debate title/premise/definitions. It is my view they were able to argue fashion being sustainable as long as humans, and to mitigate arguments of the 'depth of fashions pollution effects.
Though I 'do think Pro has a point, that we should 'try to pollute less.
RFV Extended
Description,
I wonder if fashion being defined this way will be a problem for Con.
Pro Round 1
A problem for Pro, I think, is their enlarging the definition of fashion.
When your definition includes nonpolluting methods, the 'problem of fashion pollution is quite 'easy to solve. Stopping using synthetic fibers.
Source isn't 'that bad, but might be a bit vague in places.
What would carbon emissions and wastewater damage be with natural fibers?
I might have mentioned landfills.
Con Round 1
Points out Title, Not sustainable. Creates pollution.
The title 'is a bit vague when is says sustainable.
And there's the option of changing fashion to be less pollutable, yet still existing, given how long it has existed, and what a simple concept it is.
Pro Round 2
'Problem with definition of sustainable.
Cons argument that fashion even in it's current form is sustainable even to humanities end, and will not 'be our end in itself, is strong.
Something can be sustainable, even if it has negative repercussions.
. . . Mad Max has a lot of fashion in it.
IF the debate was we ought to focus on making fashion less pollutive, I think Pro would have an easier time in this debate. But that was not the title or description.
Con Round 2
Has focused in on exact meaning, legal thinking, not 'spirit of what was meant.
But in fairness, 'what Con 'meant by this debate, has possibly only become more clear 'now in Round 2, that's a bit late.
Con includes a source, possibly 'just to guard against Pro having a source but not Con.
. . . Source isn't 'bad as it backs Cons argument of there being options to decrease pollution in world, other than 'just changing current fashion industry.
Pro Round 3
I don't think Pro backpedaled, but I think Debate Instigators are best off with 'clear explanations of what they are getting at, from the start in Title and Description.
Titles don't need to be perfect, even playful titles are fine, 'so 'long as debate description clearly lays out what is being debated, goalposts, and guidelines.
. . . Though doing so can also 'railroad debate a bit at times.
Interesting try by Pro with Con in Round 1 stating,
". Fashion wouldn't be sustainable, even if it didn't contribute to pollution. "
The lack of definition of Sustainability in the debate however, leaves voters more free to use their own commonsense definitions.
Eventually the sun might explode, commonsense definition of what is 'sustainable doesn't extend that far.
Con 'does say that fashion will last as long as humans, while humans 'may want some of their creations or functions? To last beyond the human race, lasting as long as the human race is sufficient,
And Con 'did make the argument that Fashion alone will not kill humans significantly earlier.
Con
Pro 'did give a source in round 1 with some percentages.
But the effects and lifespan 'were a bit vague.
Con forfeited their rounds.
Pro 'had arguments, while Con did not.
They do bring up some fair points,
One aspect I would have interested in though,
Is historical examples in the Eurovision contest or 'other contests such as the Olympics,
Of nations being banned or not invited due to controversies during said time periods.
But maybe would have popped up in round 2.
RFV
I do not think 'either side has 'quite enough to justify winning the debate,
Perhaps if the debate was longer, each could have addressed each others arguments, but with there being only one round, what I see are decent arguments for either view, but 'limited, not as fully expounded on as they might have been.
Debate Feels a bit Binary, cool though how it reminds me of Jade Empire Open Palm vs Closed Fist.
In the situation, is the individual who might help, strong or weak?
Do they know the Weak or Powerful individual very well?
Are there smaller or less direct ways to help?
Should I assume this is about bullying?
What are the consequences?
Does the weaker individual 'deserve help, as in are they both weak and a jerk?
Though even if they are a jerk, I think an 'ideal good person would 'try to help the weak person, if 'possible.
Pro Round 1
The weak 'deserve it, usually has to do with the idea of not choosing to be stronger, I think.
But of course people often have 'limits to their strength, even 'assuming they were 'willing to cultivate power.
Another idea of 'deserving hm, perhaps has to do with 'expectation of what will 'occur when certain individuals consistently make bad decisions. Gullible individuals for example. Though, I still find it hard to say myself, that they 'deserve to be taken advantage of.
They likely 'will be taken advantage of though, unless they can change.
Pro Arguments
1 " by definition, weak ones cannot defend themselves and thus are of no threat to the powerful ones"
Though 'some people can change and become powerful, or strong 'enough. I admit there are people and some situations, where such becomes exceptional to the point of unexpected to occur.
2 "option 2 guarantees our own survival is misleading, as survival isn't everything." With addition of "being obedient to the powerful ones does not guarantee survival."
True enough, there are people whose conscience 'rags them, for not acting to help another when they 'could have. Or curse their fate in being under the thumb of an evil individual, even when in a better position than the person victim-most.
Though 'dying to protect the weak, I think is an 'exceptional amount of self sacrifice.
. . . It is also a fair point, and one common known, that appeasement is often not effective, whilst preventing a 'system of persecution from being, can be a greater security.
But. . . There are many situations that are 'temporary, school for example, though memory and conscience are eternal.
. . . Also, it can be a bad habit to avoid righteous action.
But on another hand, sticking your nose in, can get it pinched, people generally don't like pain.
Still, I think Pro has 'decent arguments, just some possible holes here and there.
Con Arguments
Are interesting, as they are 'also in mind to help the weak, by esteeming the values of change and growth.
'Just being a grand example though, I am doubtful will 'change many weak people, 'unless the example is 'specifically that of a weak individual showing they are not 'so weak when they put their mind to it, whether in a mere moment or over time in building strength.
There are strong people everywhere, but being an example is often not 'enough I suspect, but debate is vague. 'Could refer to countries or companies.
As Pro did not include options in description, Con 'probably could have got away with a third option, helping the weak defend themselves or even fighting alongside them,
Feed a man a fish vs Teach a man to fish, thinking.
Neither Pro 'nor Con though, have examples of humans rising to the occasion, weakness to strength. Or failing to ever rise without help.
There 'are examples one can argue, Clothes to Africa for example, 'some though not all argue hinders business in Africa.
Con 'does have dogs as an example though.
While the Bible 'is a source, it's not quite universal.
Both sides legible.
Conduct to Pro for sticking around.
Polyamory?
"is the practice of, or the desire for, romantic relationships with more than one partner at the same time, with the informed consent of all partners involved." - Wikipedia,
Ah, so it's like Polygamy without the marriage part?
Yeah, looks like Con did make an error in choosing Pro or Con, could also have included more proofs and logics.
PinkDebate Con
Not always equal or exclusive.
Well, not even marriages are always 'equal, or exclusive if you count Polygamy.
I suppose there 'might be more room for abuse in a Polyamorous relationship, but I'd 'think one of those would be easier to leave than a marriage,
Marriage and female Rights in marriage, also aren't always equal with the rights men get, in all countries.
Though some also argue men get a hard shake at times, military service for instance, but the world is vast.
The definition says informed consent, so I assume the people involved would let one another know if they added another person? Well, in an 'ideal such relationship.
yachilviveyachali Pro
Well, I 'suppose arguments to Pro automatically, for obvious reasons.
I'm not well read on the Bible, but I think a number of people make arguments for Polygamy in the Bible at times.
Polyamory not as many arguments, and even those argue it as less or not mentioned.
I think Pro could have done a better job citing sources in the Bible as well as explaining the mechanism of 'how these relationships bring ruination to the soul and harm to the physical body.
But given Con skipped, Pro didn't 'need to.
Conduct was equal enough, though think Con ought to have focused arguments 'purely on Pro's arguments, not on Pro at all.
Legibility, Both sides words were easy enough to read.
Sources, Both sides used 'limited sources.
Arguments,
"Right to speech must be limited"
Is 'really vague, though Pro in later round explained further they were speaking specifically of Free Speech in India,
Con reliably argued against the ambiguity of the title and Pros arguments, as well as arguing existing laws and alternative methods to dealing with Hate Speech, than further vague restriction of Speech.
More in depth RFV in comments 34, 35, 36 of debate comments.
RFV
Due to title saying saying banned, rather than regulated, I interpret goalposts as vi_777 arguing for abortion being banned in all cases.
I additionally take this view as vi_777 did not address McMieky arguments on High Risk Situationals.
Neither side included sources.
Both sides legible.
Conduct to Pro for Con forfeit of a round.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
McMieky offered solutions to societal imbalances argued by vi_777.
McMieky missing the vi_777 unborn value arguments by vi_777, hurt McMieky, but only slightly as vi_777 was not explicit or in depth with it.
The question of society value vs individual value in debate is inconclusive.
vi_777 missing or avoiding McMieky arguments on High Risk Situations that may call for abortion are what pushes me to vote for McMieky.
Further RFV in comments 8 and 9 of debate.
RFV Forfeit by Pro
Lemming Thoughts
1. Logic: The Importance of Free Will in Human Action,
I'm not sure that something being important to humans, means it is 'true.
Actions losing meaning and people no longer being accountable. I'm not sure relates to the question of free will being true or not.
Also actions can arguably still be meaningful and people held accountable, even with a lack of free will.
Depends what one means by choose, 'or free will, I suppose.
Responsibility and Accountability,
We 'can still punish criminals, if we want to remove them from the population at large due to danger they exhibit.
Or if we think punishment will decrease likelihood others will preform said crime.
Even if we assumed we had not free will, we would still be a partial vessel or agent of causes and effects.
Choices and Ethics,
I think I've heard of religions and ethics that don't believe in free will though.
2. Philosophy: Free Will and Moral Philosophy,
I've nothing new to say.
3. Science: Neuroscience and Psychology
Libet Experiment, interesting, though Con might do well if they included sources and quotes.
Self reflection argument isn't bad, but all of that stuff 'in a person, some would argue get's 'placed there from without.
4. Compatibilism: Reconciling Free Will with Determinism
I like these arguments, Con appears to be going for a shotgun approach initially, as Pro has not defined or set goal posts for Free Will in debate.
5. Real-Life Examples: Free Will in Action
That only 'some people make said choices, would imply to some something 'different in said people that allows/caused said choice.
But again, depends on how one defines Free Will.
6. Conclusion: The Realness of Free Will
Free Will being essential for certain human actions, I think is Cons weakest argument.
Believing in something false can cause ends that would not result if not for belief in said falsehood, but such does not make said falsehood 'true.
Arguments
Biggest reason of nonconclusive results in arguments is both sides disagreements on what constitute truth/reality.
Both made arguments for their views, but both were 'lightly put.
Sources
Pro had sources, but they were not definitive 'proof of any of their claims, or were more to inform on angle Pro was coming from.
Legibility
Both sides legible.
Conduct
Pro.
Con was frequently disrespectful and insinuating throughout debate, as well as some crass language.
See further comments by Lemming for further RFD.
RFV
Arguments. Tie, I think the debate moved a bit away from Definitions and Proofs of Free Will, to a debate on the details on each side.
(I'm not sure if I am right or explain my view well, but it's my take)
Neither side cited sources, both sides used examples of objects and actions, to argue their reasonings.
Both Legible.
Conduct, both polite.
Further RFV can be read in comments 14 and 15 of this debate.
Prime reason is Pro concession,
But even without that, many of the tactics Pro argues for in round 1 'are used by America by degrees and situations.
Though Con focuses on rebutting Pro's arguments and giving tactics and historical examples contrary to Pros.
. . .
Possible suggestion I might have made, is if there were two 'explicit sources in the description of the debate for each side stating the principles followed on each side.
Longer RFV can be read in comments #16 through #14 of this debate.
Pro arguments were light, and felt more the setting 'up of the debate.
While they brought up concepts such as engagement and responsibility, their arguments lacked full depth and push.
I was unable to access their sources.
Con arguments addressed Pros points, arguing flaws within them, and even preemptively making arguments such as against mail ballots.
Their sources were accessible, though I think some of Con's sources were better than others.
Both sides legible.
Conduct to Con for Pro having unexplained absence in round 2.
Cursing doesn't really 'help conduct, but it was just one word and not cursing 'at anyone.
See comments 17 through 22 of this debate.
Albeit after moderation, source vote is now tied.
If either side should read my reasons and find them disagreeable,
Well, votes by people of different views are also valuable in understanding other people's minds and reasons.
Also DART has a page for vote requests, that sees 'slight results 'sometimes.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3492-vote-requests
There is also the option of suggesting a trade of votes, between oneself and another person looking for votes on their debate.
However such a trade does not mean they will vote for your side in your debate,
Nor that you are obligated to vote for their side in their debate.
RFV Pro forfeited, so I'm sending all the point that way.
Still, below are my thoughts while reading.
Title,
Well, might depend on what 'weaknesses one is counting.
Description
Okay.
Pro R1
Argues some ways and gives sources of some ways women are physically weaker than men.
Argues and gives sources for hormonal effects on emotions.
(Course, same might be said of some men and testosterone)
Con R1
Sources might help as well.
There exist studies that show women outperforming men in some long distance running for example.
Com makes arguments and examples of strengths that women possess. Not only physically, but mental and emotional strength as well.
Though Con might do well to argue examples of where women outperform men.
They 'do do this in health and longevity.
While Con gives examples of times women have done well in various fields, this is not the same as could they 'replace men.
If one replaced the entire military with women for example, I think there would be a degradation of performance.
. . . Though arguably there are female dominated careers, where if one replaced all the women with men, there might again be a degradation of performance.
One could also argue for the value of synergy at times.
Con argues for wider definition of weakness, which arguably Pro's own round 1 encourages by their hormone argument effecting emotions.
I'm not convinced by Cons argument that either sex needs to be stronger in 'every way, to be called stronger. In general speech, even if some item has a specialization, if it is weaker in every other aspect, it might be called weaker.
Pro R2
Pro argues,
"can women fully replace men?"
But that 'does bring up the question, can men fully replace women?
Argues careers where men excel.
I'm not sure that arguing other mammals also have kids, is a good counter argument.
Other mammals also have muscle, would that counter Pros earlier arguments?
Pro argues percentage of Nobel prize winners,
Argues exceptional women do not prove women as a whole.
Con R2
When did Pro state?
"previously stated that we should avoid gender generalizations and instead focus on individual capabilities."
Eh, one could argue that since Pro 'explicitly stated in the 'description whether women can replace men in various jobs and by how much.
Such would be the standard held to both in the debate.
Con argument 2
I don't think it matters if Pro said exceptional women exist, as after he argues 'for generalization 'not individualizing.
"However, for the majority of women"
Con argument 3
Argues the opposite,
And there 'is some merit in this, I think it is arguing that Pro is comparing apples to oranges.
. . . Though 'personally, I think men and women are enough alike, that it does not 'need be apples and oranges. . . Still, both sexes have strong points that the other cannot 'fully cover, I think.
Pro R3
Though it is 'possible Pro is acknowledging their likely defeat once people vote,
Or acknowledging they think they lost.
I'm interpreting their statements in R3 as a forfeiture.
Con R3
Seemed to enjoy the debate.
Con insulted Pro. Conduct to Pro.
Both sides lacked sources, but Con was making a lot of claims of 'why they did not care for reincarnation or karma. Eh, tie.
Both sides arguments were 'readable, though I think Cons were lacking in explanation. Legibility Tie.
Pro argument of our lives supposing to be about experiencing/discovering, trying to do better, cause and effect of good and bad actions.
Is 'understandable, though Pro didn't really offer strong 'evidence.
Cons argument seemed oddly focused on the concept of skipping,
And did not even explain too well what they 'meant by skipping.
My 'guess is they mean people who die early, but going by the vague concept of reincarnation, I'd suppose they might still have some bad karma, so even if one life is short, dying early and skipping to the next, still going to have that bad karma, maybe bad experiences.
Not that I 'believe in reincarnation or karma, other than possibly the theory of energy transforming and not dying. As well as theory of cause and effect, though ends don't 'always end up as one might expect.
Anyway, Pros arguments were clear, while Con focused on skipping lives, and did not explain their view of skipping well. In my view.