Lemming

Pro
I wish you had more rounds to this debate, while I 'understand your arguments, a single round leaves you way to open to attacks by Con.

Con
Counters Pros use of the word best,
Though I 'think one might assume Pro means the best state of affairs for/between humans.

I think it's fair to view some values as self evident (Subjectively)
Such as not being in horrible agony is good.
. . Still Con makes a good point, and leaves one wondering what Pro 'means by equality?
Financially, Biologically?

Some people are fond of Deontological Ethics.
Even if society as a whole is better, people don't always like stepping on others.
Course, sometimes just raising one person, can raise everyone, often a reason people want equality is from the people higher up forcing others down, if the ones higher up are lifting the people down low up, maybe they don't 'want the equality as much.

Final Thoughts
Pro was lacking in explanation of what they 'meant by equality, what would their equality look like? Do they have an example?

Con wins due to deconstructing several of Pros arguments such as best, and whether people would be better off (legs).

Title
Is advantageous to Con I think. As it is broad, but limited to USA.

Description
Also advantageous to Con, as they explicitly put the BoP on Pro in this debate in the description.

lacr3000 R1
All three are values, that I think Americans commonly like. A strong argument I'd say.
I suppose if I was Pro, I might try to argue that said American values are wrong, that even if such are commonly held by Americans, Americans should limit their values in some places.
Not that I 'think such, and I still think it could be hard to argue.

SpookyTown R1
Pro would do well to 'cite examples of
"the principle of bodily autonomy is not absolute and can be limited when it conflicts with societal interests or risks irreversible harm."
Not that such don't exist.

While Pro 'is making good arguments of possible dangers of gender affirming surgery, they would do well to show examples/history/law of other activities America has banned.
For example,
"Scleral tattooing is illegal in the American states Oklahoma and Indiana and the Canadian provinces Ontario and Saskatchewan."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scleral_tattooing#:~:text=Rather%20than%20being%20injected%20into,Canadian%20provinces%20Ontario%20and%20Saskatchewan.
However such is a relatively 'recent law I think.

Government role in healthcare is good.
Though it is vague.

Pro adds on with dangers of surgery, and existence of possible other options.
Though I think Con still has a leg they 'could stand on, with how big Americans are on their freedom.

Financial argument not as strong to me, as I don't think surgery would 'have to be covered by healthcare. And could be made a purely individual cost.
Pros own argument of alternate treatments could work against them here.

lacr3000 R2
If no explanation for missed round occurs, going to count as conduct hit,
Also bad for Con is that have not addressed Pros arguments, giving Pro an advantage.

SpookyTown R2
Irreversible care not the 'strongest argument.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlBP5gUM40g
Neuralink will need to be removed from the first human

America big on freedom, and people willing to take risks. Though one 'could argue that dangerous choices should not be allowed. What about skydiving? Rock Climbing? People like freedom in America.

Minors not strongest argument, due to how broad debate title and description is. Debate not 'limited to minors I think.

Brings up dangers and other methods.

Social Discord not a strong argument, again due to American ideas of freedom.

lacr3000 R3
If no explanation for missed round occurs, going to count as conduct hit,
Also bad for Con is that have not addressed Pros arguments, giving Pro an advantage.

SpookyTown R3
Exploitive industry while 'bad, not strong argument due to American ideas of freedom.
Look at casinos or phone games that eat credit cards.
Americans and their ideas of freedom.

I'm not sure about history of state-sanctioned experimental medicine, I would need it explained and exampled more.

At a glance 2nd source is better than first,
As 2nd backs up Pro argument of trans regret.
Though if Con had time, they might be able to rebut it.

However, Description of debate says
"2. No new arguments in the final round."
So I will not be awarding sources to anyone.

RFV
Pro wins arguments, by offering arguments of
Bodily autonomy is not absolute,
Dangers,
Government having legislation in medicine.

Sources tie, no new arguments rule.

Legibility, both legible.

Conduct to Pro, as Con did not offer explanation for absence.

I think debate was weighted towards Con, and they might have won, but missing all rounds but the first, gave a large advantage to Pro.

I thought Pro argued well, though their arguments 'could have been addressed by Con. Presumably Pro would have given more depth in argument to address Cons rebuttals.

Reasons for vote in comments 10 through 14 of this debate.

Busisiwe R1
Robot teachers 'sound cool to me,
But I think Pro makes a better argument for 'testing robot teachers, than switching immediately.
A problem with Pros arguments is they are more claims than proofs.
Pr sources do not appear to function for me.

My Thoughts
I remember a number of video games that included learning elements as a kid,
Many were from The Learning Company, but there 'were many others. I found them fun.

But of course Pro is talking about 'teachers, not games.
I'm not sure 'current robots can capture, hold attention, and respond to nuance well enough.
I'm not sure they are much better than a 'book with all the relevant information.
Additionally problem is argument that school is useful for socialization, though I think many people hate the way school is structured for such, possible there are other ways people could socialize.

Americandebater24 R1
Makes arguments that humans serve various roles that are difficult for robots to emulate such as mentors, role models, a wide swathe of topics and human skills.
Argues it could be hard for a person to emotionally connect to a robot.
Humans currently more adaptable.
Human socialization, people may turn from humans and isolate.
Problems maintaining authority.
Has sources, though I am unsure how 'valuable other people's arguments are. Maybe sources most valuable as statistics or facts to back one's own arguments.

My Thoughts
Bit contradiction to say people could not emotionally connect, then to argue people could withdraw because they connect so much with robot.
People losing jobs argument not strongly influence me, though a concern, many techs over history have replaced jobs.
I don't think Pro 'or Con gave 'examples, facts, what the limits of AI and Robot teachers are. They assume people already know. And assume they are limited. It is possible there are already studies or attempts at robot teachers, but alas only 1 round each anyway.

Pro also could have made arguments such as safety, personal robot tutor at home, means no mass school shooting.
Though that argument would still have problems.

Reason For Vote
Con made more arguments and addressed Pros arguments. The benefit of going first and last.
Con raised valid concerns, such as limits of robots both in their flexibility and simply as robots not people (Emotional).
Con included sources, that gave readier a baseline for definitions of teacher.

Con missed the debate.

Pro concession.

Title states something people would usually see as bad,
Kids with cancer,
Assumably given by God, because God created existence that includes cancer, or in some views of God, all of worlds little parts and peoples lives going according to Gods plan. Though many theists think our paths are more free than that, or even if unfree fighting against the wrong in the world is part of Gods plan.

Pro argues God knows best,
Meaning I assume that Gods actions are for the best.
Course a question that pops up, is it in Gods plan then that we question him sometimes?
Pro then argues threat,
Best not question the super powerful guy.
I suppose, though I might still have reasons to question.

Con argues
Con argues that even if God does know best, there can be value in questioning God by it being an act of engagement with God.
Though I might argue the questioning in the Bible, I 'think was sometimes shown to represent how undeserving and lacking in faith people could be.
Or was shown as a means to highlight how of course people will question and ask why, though God also praises Job at the end for his questioning I think. Or maybe he was praising Job for accepting God despite his situation. Faith can be important for people, even in facets of life unrelated to God.
Faith in the possibility of ends, can lead to their realizations.
Or the belief that one ought not be a fair weather friend.

Con builds on their engagement argument by arguing that questioning then holding to faith, builds one's faith.
Which does make sense, it's possible a person who has never questioned their faith, might be broken when they encounter a strong obstacle or resistance to it.
Though I'd I imagine there are people who question God in easy circumstances, whose faith still breaks.

Con argues all powerful and wise God may not mind our questioning.

Hm, Both assume God to exist, and to be good, except Pro says God knows best, but then that God might hurt us if we question him. Course one could argue God is still Good, and that the hurt was for our own good.
Pro it's for the best, also he might hurt you if you question him.
Con Engaging brings you closer to God, and can make your faith stronger.

Well, my vote goes to Con, as they offered possible reasons and examples to question God.
Being a 1 round debate and Con going last, they had an advantage of being able to pick at Pro and not have their own arguments questioned.

While I can understand someone making a mistake,
There is Pro and Con, the title makes a claim, Sunshineboy217 was Pro,
They even include their view in the description, implying if not stating they think the Earth is round.
Con realized their error, and still had three rounds they could have used to make the best of the situation, they didn't so my vote to Pro.

I suppose one could 'try to argue the Earth is not round, like an octagon is not round. Though such would be a bit cheap, and still might not work.

Or argue the various theories people bring up when they argue the Earth is flat. I can't recall what arguments said people use though.

Pro R1
The Lusitania was carrying weapons, and why should Americans have to die because of other Americans choosing to go into war zones.
Though insulting and something to be wary of, the Zimmermann Telegram failed, and I do not see why we would need to see it as an 'all German policy, new people rotate in and out.
I don't think the League was a 'terrible idea.

I admit I don't care for the Sedition Act of 1918 at face value.
Eh, being a racist isn't something 'great, but lot of people were racist back then.
Espionage Act sounds a bit bad on face value.
Spanish Flu 'was bad I hear, I'm unfamiliar with what actions Wilson took.

Pro round 1 isn't bad, but relies a lot on people being familiar with history.
Which isn't bad so long as the judges 'are familiar with history.

Con R1
Interesting argument, but I'd think it 'would be appalling to meet people one considers stupid.
Course depends on definition of appalling maybe.
Very bad/awful vs shocking.

Pro and Con rest of rounds
Mm, I'd rather Pro continues to argue, perhaps make arguments on why it is bad that people should call Wilson a good president.
But Con does not seem to mind. Con 'might mind, and might prefer that a person votes for them, but this is not readily apparent to my by their R2 of subsequent rounds.

Pro was around for debate.
Sources didn't factor in really.
Pro was legible.
Con conduct hit for missing debate.

Title and Description
I read The Brothers Karamazov once in High School.
. . . Well, permitted by who?
Even in chess one is not permitted by standard rules, to move a King as a Knight.
One can do so anyhow, but even if God exists, one can eat human flesh, even if it is not permitted by God.
People still commit and value acts defined evil by God.
R1
"what is considered moral today can be considered immoral tomorrow"
I suppose, but any yardstick is a yardstick, what makes God the yardstick of yardsticks?
R2
Moral Truths, Moral Ends, Ends that maximize X or hold true to X.
If one father instructs their child to kill, and another father instructs their own child to not kill, Both children's moral facilities were not random, but intentionally designed.
Course, I suppose one might argue that there 'is no other God, that my example of two fathers does not work compared to God.
R3
I think obligations exist when there is some end,
The obligation exists when considering how to reach that end,
If I value money above all, I have an obligation to take advantage of my fellow humans,
If I value my fellow humans, I have an obligation not to take advantage of them. Generally speaking.

Con gave the 'only arguments in the debate.
Not many, but still.

Sources Tie, Legibility Tie,
Conduct to Con.

One could argue certain male or female mannerisms are better in certain situations,
Or that one might 'tend to beat the other overall.

Reason For Vote can be found in comments 5 and 6 of this debate.

Reason for vote in comments 2,3,4,5 of this debate.

NOT LEGALLY AVAILABLE
Even if something is not legally available in one's own country, is it 'right to steal it?
Whether the seller is unable or unwilling to sell a product in certain locations, does that make it right to steal the product, or to pay a thief who stole the product?
. . . Is it not someone elses property?
Should stolen property not be returned to the owner?
. . . Of course 'intellectual property, is a bit different than physical property I think.

I get what Con is arguing, other forms of software for example could include outdated video games that don't run on modern systems, except for people who modify the game illegally and make it free to download/pirate.
The question again though, is what is the 'right of intellectual property?

NOT REALISTICALLY AFFORDABLE
Is it not the owners property?
Are cyber products like video games or music 'necessary as food is?

SIDE THOUGHTS
A question for the 'debate though, is what are "heavy-fines"?

I see Cons angle, a flaw in their argument might be that they are arguing people can have justifications to pirate cyber objects.
But people can find 'Justifications for many actions,
Speaking more 'normatively for society, it seems logical to in general have fines for cyber piracy.

EVIL COMPANIES
If a company is evil, should society not 'legally address it's evil?
And until it is addressed, ought it not share the same legal rights as other companies.
. . . Con is again arguing justification for the act of piracy,
But one could argue the debate is what the legal action of a community should be towards cyber theft.

FINAL THOUGHTS
I don't think Cons arguments are 'bad,
But I do think they are incomplete and allow the opponent good room for rebuttals.
But, only a 1 round debate, and Pro posted no arguments,
So of course debate goes to Con.

RFV in comments 16 and 17 of this debate.

Reason for Vote, in comments 7 and 8 of this debate.

See Reason for Vote in comments 14 through 17 of this debate.

Americandebater24 lost because they missed their chance to respond to AnonYmous_Icon in the last round, by not being around.
Maybe they would have lost even if they had made an argument in the third round,
But by missing the round, they definitely lost.

They 'did manage to argue against Pros first round rather well,
Though I do not think poetry and emotional appeal are bad arguments myself,
As Con says, it helps if they are backed by more, which Pro arguably did in round 3.

Not that I agree with Pros arguments in round 3,
Or their arguments as a whole,
But Pro 'did end up making arguments, while Con may have negated Round 1 arguments, they failed to respond to round 3 arguments.
. . .

Of my views of Israel, I doubt they have changed from some previous forum threads I commented in.

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/11824-christian-doble-standard?page=1
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10053-is-israel-justified?
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9978-strike-a-blow-at-tel-aviv?page=1
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9973-what-would-need-to-happen-for-the-israeli-palestinian-conflict-to-come-to-a-peaceful-end?page=1
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9957-christians-before-you-support-israel-just-realize-they-hate-you?page=1
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9953-the-hamas-attack-on-israel?page=1
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9960-israel-sells-american-military-tech-to-china-they-are-not-allies?page=1

See reason for vote in comments #5 and #6.

Reason for Vote, in comments #5 and #6 of this debate.

Con 'clearly knew what Pro 'meant, and so do I imagine, do most voters.
If this were a Presidential debate, I wouldn't be swayed by one of the debaters saying NBA instead of NRA. Or by someone with an accent saying a word wrong, so long as I knew what they meant.
And Pro 'does give enough context clues in the description, for one to know what they meant.
Still, fair enough, Con can have Legibility, as it is one of the Criteria.

Pro keeps on the debate that I view as mattering more than going for the misplaced letter. So Arguments to Pro.

Conduct, tie, Con has a fair enough tactic, even if I don't care for it much.

Sources, Pro source didn't 'add much to debate, was more descriptive of Chat GPT, and talking about possible concerns.
I 'think sources matter more often as 'proof of statistics or events.
Yes sources said IQs dropping, but said that they've been doing that for a while.

I don't think Chat GPT is or has ruined DART,
I don't use it, and can ideally find others who don't,
Chat GPT just slight obstacle,
Doesn't stop people from learning, same as people don't 'have to use a mobility scooter. Unless they have health problems, but their existence doesn't mean people 'have to use them and lose muscles.

Judging by the time stamps, and fact that Con is the last to post a round, and was waiting for Pro to clarify the debate or post an argument,
Con was around for the debate, Pro was not,
Therefore Pro forfeited the debate, it appears to me.

As Pro conceded "Heh I bow to clearly superior logic."
Arguments go to Con.

I insist however in giving Pro legibility.
Due to Con use or r instead of are, u instead of you, and various other points of spelling and grammar.

Pros main points appear to be that fast fashion is bad for the environment and takes advantage of it's workers.
While Con argues that whether long or short fashion, either one uses workers,
Pros source in Round 1 says
"The rapid trend cycle, known as micro-trending, encourages the majority of fast fashion companies to engage in unethical labor practices in order to create a high volume of clothing at a low cost."

Pro also argues in round 1 that when a shirt is cheaper, the worker gets paid less, but I would think they make more shirts 'quicker, so if it takes someone a day to make 1 quality shirt worth 10 dollars, it takes someone a day to make 10 shirts worth 1 dollar each,
Maybe what they are paid ought still be equal? So I am unsure about this argument.

Con argues that fast fashion is cheaper, for the consumer.
I don't think this is necessarily true, as one might run through 20 cheap shirts in a year, costing 20 dollars, compared to one expensive shirt in a year worth 10 dollars.
Pro does not make this argument however, focusing more on the cost to the environment,
Which becomes as cost to society as a whole. Stated in round 4 "carbon"

I don't think I read Pro fully addressing Con argument that child labor and sweatshops are not slavery. Not that I 'agree with Con, but it 'is true that children work on farms, and adults agree to work for sweatshops.
Though such ignores laws passed for example in England outlawing child labor because of obvious force, manipulation, disregard for safety, health, wellbeing. Not really comparable to child doing farm chores 'with other family members.
Also ignores sweat shops that coerce workers, or situation that coerces workers into poor conditions, that one 'could argue are slavery.
But these are my arguments, not Pros.
. . .

Conclusion, Pro and Con both offered arguments,
Though I think Cons diverge from what 'I would call norms.
While I 'might agree a person is able to stab themself in the chest if they want or enjoy it, I 'definitely draw the line at that person stabbing their chest 'through my chest.
I find the environmental concerns raised by Pro persuasive.

However, I am not sure Pro fully defends his point of Fast Fashion taking advantage of the workers.
So I am only awarding Pro Sources, everything else I leave as equal, though 'unobjectively, I found Pro more convincing.

I suppose some people die to escape suffering,
But then one could argue they die to escape existence,
Then again some people think there is an existence beyond this one.

I'd probably have tried to argue that happy people are not suffering,
Argue that glass more than half full of happiness, people would more often call happiness, than sadness.

Problem with hey-yo consciousness argument, I think, is that many people view "I think, therefore I am.", Am/Exist.
ToLearn focuses on existence, more than how existence comes about.
If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around. . .

Hm, then again, ToLearn 'does specify "Living organisms" in their argument.
And in Round 3, states the nonconscious cannot experience suffering,
But. . . by their definition in Round 1, some of the definitions can apply to the nonconscious,
"2: to sustain loss or damage", a rock 'can be damaged.
Fact that definition is redefinable, could help out Con.

Pro saying "So like we can decide whether to be joyful or not as we wish, we can also decide whether to suffer" allows chink to argue existence not suffering, though they do say "or end it" still chinks can be wiggled.

hey-yo Round 3, continues on Consciousness argument,
Some danger though, as people disagree about what 'cause means.

Round 4, hm Qualia,
. . .A coma patient's body can be harmed, is the 'patient then not harmed unless 'awakening?
Though I suppose they 'still exist, even if their consciousness is in a shut box, exist until that box is destroyed Materialist might say, but many people believe in something more.
. . . Idea of a person, people protective even of bones, would be outraged by harm to coma patient, even if perhaps never awaken, but because 'conciousness still 'there maybe, still highest right to own body.

ToLearn argues Consciousness causing suffering, not stop one from saying Existence causes suffering.
Sadly hey-yo does not have follow up to all of this.

I'm not voting because I can't quite follow ToLearn's A,B,C logic,
Not that it doesn't make sense, but some apple trees are poisonous,
I 'do think Con needed to make some argument qualifying Consciousness as the cause, more than existence though.
Just because Material Existence Is, doesn't mean we'll 'have apple trees, Material Existence would still need to shape in a form that allows apple trees,
Mankind didn't have apple trees just because material existence, we still had to develop modern apple tree over time.
Eh, guess I will vote, Pro - Nah, tie.

Pro too accepting of Cons argument,
This allows steps between existence and suffering,
If I strike flint and steel, I not say fire exists because of existence,
Not common talk, I say fire exists because of flint and steel, sparks, tinder got hot.

Pro Round 1
I don't understand the three arguements,
There is obediance to the laws of physics, whether one is complex or not.
If one follows some self created purpose, then they followed physics, logically they shouldn't/couldn't have done anything else, then their path was correct.
I don't why it is 'better to not have desires or problems, since Pro is big on the ought problem being solved by causation, what things 'should do, is what they 'do/have done.

Con Round 1
Makes an interesting argument, that even faulty arguments can be logical,
Though I assume most people extend the logic they are testing a argument with, to include new information. Arguments aren't closed boxes I mean.
All swans are white, that thing despite looking like a swan in every other way, is not white, therefore it is not a swan.
Why the logic follows in the box, most people add new information into the box.
Still, all this doesn't really matter, since I think Con makes a good arguement anyway, and Pro abandons any attempts to further their own arguements or attack Cons.

I vote Con because I followed their logic easier than Pro,
And Pro's logic seemed faulty to me,
Maybe it wasn't, but Pro didn't stick around to argue their case further.

End thoughts,

I lean towards voting Con,
Partially due to Pro not addressing the Bible and creationism much,
'Yes Pro made arguments for evolution, but that is only half the battle per debate title.

Hm, rereading,
Con does not make arguments of Creationism being correct (Except for Creationism being correct Biblically, as 'in the Bible and correct to Creationists)
Fair bit of a dodge that pushes me towards Pro, since I prefer debaters engage 'spirit of debate, what was 'meant by creator.

So currently in tie,
Yes, Pro claims evolution commonly accepted,
But 'many times 'throughout debate, states neither side can be proven,
While in good faith, and true, this can still weaken a person's argument,
. .
It is good to steelman one's argument,
It is often good to preemptively address opponent arguments,
But it's 'only good if opponent is touched by show of good faith,
Or if you manage to direct the flow of the expected opponent argument as to weaken it.
Part of 'winning a debate, is style, is 'appearance.
One 'can admit weakness with style, but in this debate, it did not come off well for Pro, partially because of Con's style and strategy.
Though Con strategy 'was at expense to their proving Creationism as logical/reasonable to be accepted as true.

I remain for tie as a vote,
Because even though I think Pro had some chinks in their evolution arguments,
Con did not address them, instead focusing more on semantics,
Pro gets points for staying on topic and making arguments,
Con gets points for attacking debate framing, and Pro admitting difficulty of proof.

See comments 6 and 7 for my thoughts during debate.

See posts #2 and #3 in this debate for vote reason.

Sorry, a tie, can't spend time thinking on debate.
I've got to get to bed, then work, then the timer runs out, ah well.
Math get's acknowledged as an art, at least partially,
Con pushes heavily for math being at least partially 'physical 'per definition.

If I thought about the debate more, I think I might vote for Math_Enthusiast,
As Atoktheadvocate conceded a lot of points, though they also made arguments for math being a science,
It's not 'bad to disagree with the definition,
And definitions in descriptions not always great (Not that this description definition good or bad)
But 'does take part of one's argument to disagree with definition.

My initial view is math 'can be an art and a science,
The action and result of math can be artistically done,
Vary on individual and style/energy.
Yet there's still a. . . 'Solid element to math, 1+1=2, expected as certain results,
But perhaps there are liquid and solid states to 'many an X,
Like boxing.

Math_Enthusiast R1
Makes the argument for math being an art,
Memorization being different than utilization and new expanses.

I'm not very convinced by their argument of math not being a science though,
I mean 1 cat is one cat,
As a shade of green at X (However color works) is one shade of green,
Either one we place as an idea in our head,
Either one 'exists physically.

Atoktheadvocate R1
"Numbers themselves are abstractions, yes. But in most cases, barring complex theoretical maths, the abstractions are standing for physical quantities. Regardless of the point of abstract versus physical in nature, math is a study, a knowledge."

Is the part that matters most, as Atoktheadvocate accepts math as being capable of being art.
Hm, I think back to Math_Enthusiast R1,
. . . Math as abstract, . .
But then 'everything is abstract in all sciences and not applicable.

Math_Enthusiast R2
Makes point that Definitions were in Description of debate,
'Still, Atoktheadvocate can make argument that math 'is physical in a sense.

Eh, math is used experimentally,
People try this or that to get equations to work,
Try the math out in real world to see if writing matches, then why it matches or not.
(But this is 'my argument)

Atoktheadvocate R2
Missed, but apologized for later.

Math_Enthusiast R3
Extended.

Atoktheadvocate R3
Interesting differentiation on sciences, reminds of of a recent discussion in the forum,
Are people that stubborn? (Religious and atheists alike)

Atoktheadvocate makes argument, in a sense all things are science,
But I Lemming, still think we place science and art in categories, even if they leak and mesh a bit into each other.
If Math_Enthusiast is able to call math an art, it can be called a science easily enough,
But Atoktheadvocate might do best by sticking to debate definition, can still be done.

They do make argument that science is umbrella term for many subjects and forms of knowledge.
This isn't bad, though it's a bit vague,
That same vagueness was used to call math and art.

"You would be correct if your assertion was that mathematics does not fall within physical science,"
Seems to me a bad move, even if the description can be considered fallacious.

Math_Enthusiast R4
Insists on debate definition.

Atoktheadvocate R4
Point about theoretical science.
Says by debate definition math not 'purely physical.

Math_Enthusiast R5
N/A
Atoktheadvocate R5
N/A

Kouen R1
Shared burden of proof, murder as killing,
One might argue 'why the word murder exists, if it means the 'same as killing,
Also might have been better put in description.
By Kouen's definition, I assume he'll make strong push towards debate being about whether fetus is a 'person.
Kouen uses a source and pushes for human life starting at fertilization,
Still, human 'life might not be viewed the same as human 'being.

Public-Choice R1
Yeah there's the weak point of using definitions in R1 rather than description, that can occur,
Though sometimes opponents are agreeable enough to R1 definitions.

I think that's a 'really weak definition of murder by Public-Choice.
To me looks that it's 'clearly talking about 'nations more than people.
Sources 2-5 argue for people having access and against criminalizing abortion, but that isn't the same as them taking a stance on whether it is murder/killing or not.
Not 'all definitions of murder 'require it to be criminal.

With just 1 round (The rest being forfeited or extended), neither side makes 'arguments that I consider convincing or 'better, Tie,
Both sides used sources, but I did not think Public-Choice's 'fit into the debate,
However Kouen did not fully 'utilize their source, Tie,
Legibility tie, both understandable.
Public-Choice get's conduct, since they were at least 'around for the debate,
Still, "(waiving is not an argument)"
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy

RFV
Hm, jamesrobertjoseph a bit late in making argument that murder is unjust killing (R5), and not many words used to address it.
Though I don't find Barney's murder arguments highly compelling.

jamesrobertjoseph 'personhood arguments lacking,
'Yes personhood subjective,
But most people don't think a rock is a person,
jamesrobertjoseph needed make more arguments on why a zygote,
Is a more blurred case than a rock,
Though for some people it's not, and the blurring comes later,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ensoulment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beginning_of_human_personhood
. .
Eh, even if one is not religious, not believe in soul,
Even such people believe in sentience, often, at least 'act like do, practical,
Just replace soul with some other word.

But I am rambling,
I'm just going to vote Barney, as throughout debate,
Their points were more fully developed, more pronged.
I still don't think it was 'convincing,
But it was a better effort and result.

jamesrobertjoseph points were more focused on single prong of new existence,
But they did not fully develop this prong.

They 'did blunt some of Barney's prongs a bit, but not 'consistently.

Various thoughts of Voter during debate.
jamesrobertjoseph
Description/R1
Makes an assertion, states some facts.
Not enough facts to prove the assertions yet though.

Barney R1
I'd say murder 'can be a legal term,
But even if a judge or jury rules an individual did not murder some other individual,
Might be people still dead certain on the view that it was murder,
And I mean full adult individuals with full mental capacity and activity.
Course this is 'my arguement.

jamesrobertjoseph argues personhood is subjective in R2,

And in R3 says laws should be objective,
This doesn't quite make sense to me,
But Barney in R2 differentiates justifiable homicide and murder,
As well as the homeless example.
. . . There are many different 'laws though, differentiating types of killing,
So Barney's claim isn't really 'objective.

Though jamesrobertjoseph 'wants to claim murder objective as well.
. . .
Hm, well, subjective voter is all there is to be swayed.
. . . . .

Barney R1
Makes agreement about separated human body parts not being another person,
If they had more words, they might make further agreement about intelligence lacking,

jamesrobertjoseph R2 notes that the fetus contains 'different cells, implying new person.
Course people about this argue the new cells still not a new 'person, even if blueprints.
'Personhood seems a bit tricky though.

Barney R2
Makes interesting agreement about hand having potential to be a new person,
Twins 'do exist after all,
As well as clones, I am reminded of The House of the Scorpion by Nancy Farmer.

My Thoughts Currently
I don't think Barney murder agreement is strong,
More relevant is whether fetus is considered person or not.

jamesrobertjoseph R3
Is mistaken in agreement that human hand cannot become-
Hm, I don't actually understand cloning. . .
Googling, Hm, I 'think you can clone something using blood,
Hm Barney R3 video, process involved putting the dna into an empty egg and electricity,
This is a step 'behind of fetus,. . .
Though of course Barney made this agreement addressing jamesrobertjoseph's agreement of potential.
. . .
'Potential varies though.
Ink and paper 'could be a painting,
Half drawn painting 'could be a fully finished painting,
People probably more upset if you take away the half finished painting while in the process though, features, 'life, 'personality are in that half painting.
Hm, regaurdless.

jamesrobertjoseph R4 does not adequately address cloning,
Though their words seem to imply that if I made a clone of myself it would still be me and not a separate individual.

Further side thought,
Debate description makes note of zygote,
Rather than say an unborn an hour from birth.

Barney R3
Agreement that if fetuses are people, they are responsible for their choices, is not very convincing,
But jamesrobertjoseph 'is having trouble addressing 'all points made in debate.

Also I am not convinced of it being criminal to care for ones children,
But it's a short word debate.

jamesrobertjoseph R4
Hm, interesting agreement about new human life,
But I'm not sure the new life 'matters,
As we don't think a hand cut off is sentient,
Maybe people certain zygote not sentient,
Though I'm still not a fan of abortion myself, at all.

jamesrobertjoseph R5
Ah, now addressing the differences between a zygote and a severed hand.
But short on words, short on convincement.

Barney R5
Eh, newborn baby needs external resources to be an adult, eh 'adults need external resources food, water.
But eh, debates done.

RFV
Barney more clearly defines theft,
Makes arguments about when it is appropriate to define situations as theft,
Makes criticisms of Redpilled's arguments and logic.

'Some of Barney sources not so much fact proven, as were 'colorful descriptive, invoking perspective.

If Redpilled had more rounds, 'maybe they could have rallied stronger, but current arguments felt bit incomplete in Redpilled's arguments perspective.

R1 Redpilled
Hm, if war was 'agreed to by both sides,
I suppose it might not be considered war,
As one doesn't view a lost gamble as money being 'stolen. (Though some do, depending on the gamble or 'sense of the word steal)
Then again, when people steal bases in baseball, , ,
Hm, maybe I'm in one of my 'vague moments. . .

Still Redpilled round 1 seems pretty flawed to me,
Given how steal/theft is not too defined here,
People in life will beat up other people and force them to give up their wallets, we still call it theft.

R1 Barney
"unjust means"
Leaves an option of the "take away" being just,
Buuuut, that would still be pretty difficult to argue, and even 'if argued, has some holes.

I've not 'really read much about Columbus,
Just want to state because I haven't read of him, I don't have strong opinions on way or the other.
https://hardcoreitalians.blog/2022/10/09/true-or-false-understanding-the-accusations-against-christopher-columbus-and-their-merits/

Land Taking,
One 'could make the argument that penalty is not theft,
Such as when one is fined an amount of money for a crime,
It is not seen as theft. (Though some people view it as theft, and some situations people generally would call it theft)
Still, I think Barney is making effective arguments against what Redpilled has posted thus far.

One 'could argue Robin Hood 'liberated gold from the rich,
'Rather than stealing what another person stole,
As police don't 'steal from criminals when they liberate illicit funds and put them into government funds.

Barney rebuts effectively, noting flaws in logic by Redpilled's arguments in R1.

R2 Redpilled
Only 2 rounds, and this one is short, looks bad for Redpilled.

I think Redpilled's argument would require the colonists to be just people,
And the Natives to be unjust,
But Europe is 'full of wars and force,
The Colonists 'did break many treaties,
Many Natives had decent good civilization.
. . .
Hm,
Would 'any nation own anything, if all land has been taken unjustly?
. .
Hm, treaties imply acceptance that land 'is currently valid, even if in past history it was stolen, but this is 'my argument, not Barney's.
. . .

Hm, 2 main arguments by Redpilled,
The land was 'won by war, not stolen,
You can't steal from a thief.

These arguments are hurt by Barney making use of a definition of stealing,
Redpilled neglected debate description and definitions, though arguably tried to define war as different than theft.

Hm, I say hm too much, still, hm,
Is 'every war settlement theft?

If there is a den of wolves,
And I drive them out from the forest, because they have been attacking people,
Is such 'theft?
Does it depend on if I have intention to 'live on the wolves land or not?
. . .

Redpilled makes a lot of claims of the American Natives being immoral, but they are lacking in sources.

R2 Barney
I imagine thieves who live together, would still see it as stealing, if they took by force or guile from a comrade.
Would have viewed their earlier piracy as theft.

'Privateers and 'Raiders though,
Towards a nation one is at war with, might not see their acquisitions as theft.
But this is 'my argument, not Redpilled's, it also fails to address times America broke treaties and as a nation intentionally entered into war with intention of taking.

Though one might argue not 'all American wars and colonists were theft.

Definitions.
Definitions leans this pretty heavy in Bella3sp's favor.

Defining something as "inappropriate"
Normally precedes that inappropriate thing being discouraged.

Not everyone 'agrees on what cultural appropriation,
Personally I'm more of mind of RationalMadman's arguments in Round 1,
But that's a bit offhand,
RationalMadman accepted the debate, and definitions.

Bella3sp Round 1
Eh, people 'could still go the freedom route,
Not whether people should be allowed, but that people 'should act inappropriately sometimes, to reaffirm that freedom, benefits outweighing the harms argument.
Not that I agree/disagree with that argument.
. .

I'd argue there's a difference between 'mocking a culture,
And appropriating it's culture.

Though one might argue wiggers are still harmful to American black culture,
There's 'many American black cultures,
Same as one picking up redneck culture might be viewed as harmful to white American culture,
But again, 'lots of American cultures.

The wigger isn't really 'mocking blacks though.
. .

The Redskins, as a number of sports teams might call themselves,
I suppose one could still call appropriation,
Though the people aren't 'mocking,
They are 'playing with the imagery a bit, wearing face paint, Native American headdress or something at game,
Still, Americans play with their own culture sometimes, wear their flag on their face, or white wigs.
. .

I suppose route Con could go with is arguing with examples of appropriation 'not being harmful in X many cases.
To counteract Pro arguments of harmful.

RationalMadman Round 1

Though RationalMadman's argument on cultures sharing and encouraging change, accepting individuals into their culture is rational,
'Big problem is the definition in this debate and the word "inappropriate"

RationalMadman 'might have argued "inappropriate" is vague,
Thus sticking with the definition,
By noting 'technically if one person or a group find it inappropriate,
It could be both inappropriate 'and appropriate,
People disagree on 'what matters are.

But RationalMadman Round 1, more is arguing that culture sharing can be good.

Bella3sp Round 2
Mostly Bella3sp noting definitions of debate,
Appreciation vs Appropriation.

RationalMadman Round 2
Doesn't really make any arguments,
"I don't care anymore, have a free unrated win."
'Could be seen as concession,
'Or it could be seen as expectation of loss, due to not wanting to put in effort to win.

Bella3sp Round 3
Not really any arguments,
Understandable to be tired, but a bit of a downer, by 'either side towards each other to 'state so in debate,
Doing any activity with someone and complaining about it, stating heart not into it, drags the activity a bit, maybe.

RationalMadman Round 3
No Show.

RFD
Arguments,
Though I think the definition was a bit cheaty,
Bella3sp justified her side in round 1,
While RationalMadman needed to make a 'different attack than what he did,
Good Round 1 by RationalMadman, it's just that it misses the target, due to "inappropriate" definition.
Arguments to Bella3sp.

Sources,
I'm not giving Bella3sp sources, because I don't think the 'examples given of cultural appropriation 'are inappropriate,
Besides, whites can have dreadlocks if they want, (I think one of the sources I skimmed complained about white dreadlocks)
Sources Tie, mostly definitions by both, not really 'proof sources.

Legibility, both sides understandable. Tie.

Conduct, tie,
Since RationalMadman might have conceded, missed round just counts more towards that conclusion.

See debate comments numbers #63 and #64.

Pevensie R1
Hm, going with strict Bible wording,
I'd expect Con to focus on the debate title use of the word 'Always,
I'd expect Con then to argue for exceptions,
Which Pro might argue are still immoral actions just less immoral,
Which Con might argue less immoral means moral action in context.

Or Con look to see if passages in Bible contradict, passages used by Pevensie.

Best.Korea R1
Hm, going with the being born is evil argument, unusual.

Pevensie R2
Argues pain can be good.
That might stand, depending on whether Best.Korea can argue 'all pain is bad.

Nonexistent being can't really be better or worse, as it doesn't exist,
Existent being, might think itself better or worse, being existent or non.

Best.Korea R2
Eh, I wouldn't say that Best.Korea is arguing against the Bible 'quite,
Ja Pevensie is using Bible to support their arguments, but description and title don't say using the Bible as a standard.

Best.Korea argues everyone would 'eventually commit suicide,
That 'might be true,
But I'm not sure if that's because life is not worth it,
Or because life was not worth it to 'that person in 'that moment.

Eh, life being torture or gift, subjective perhaps.

Best.Korea arguments on existence of evil, not fully fleshed out.

Pevensie R3
Eh, religous is vague wide word, some might argue from their view such as game theory their arguments are not religious.
Isn't Dante's Inferno fiction?

Aborted babies go to Hell?
Hell is greatest possible pain?
Booo, boo Pevensie, boo,
Eh, I'm an Atheist anyway.

Free Will argument 'is one some people use for existence of evil.

Best.Korea R3
Get's a bit off topic.

Second Reading
Hm, Pevensieargues abortion is immoral due to Bible 'statement claims,
No logic or 'explanation,
Just authority appeal.
BUT Best.Korea doesn't 'address this.

Best.Korea argues 'any pain as evil, and evil outweighing good,
Lays it on a bit thick.

Pevensie relies heavily on blanket claims by others,
A problem for Best.Korea in arguments though, Is that they are not 'addressing this.
While Pevensie 'does address and make argument against Best.Korea claims of all life is pain/bad.
Best.Korea all life is pain/torture/bad, is not fully fleshed out,

Though I'm inclined to vote for Pevensie,
I don't think they. . . No, that's my own thoughts, Best.Korea 'doesn't address Pevensie's use of appeal to authority,
While Pevensie 'does address Best.Korea's claims that being born is evil.

RFV
Pevensie's appeal to athority is allowed to stand, and they are able to undercut Best.Korea's arguments that being born is evil,
Appeal to Authority convincing for some people, don't speed sign says, some people obey because sign said so, no other reason, people 'could 'think on 'why though, and whether authority in X case is valid, but Best.Korea did not argue against Pevensie's appeal to authority.

Best.Korea laying on being born as complete evil, makes it easier to knock down,
Though 'maybe Best.Korea could have strengthened this argument, word count was restrictive of Best.Korea being able to do this.

Arguements Pevensie, though both sides did poorly in my view.
Sources, addressing source validity is part of argument, not sources itself, because someone said so, someone elses argument, I don't rate highly as 'sources, but instead lend weight more towards a person 'explaining their own arguments.
Sources a tie, since, I don't view Pevensie's as strong sources, and Best.Korea used none.
Legibility, both understandable.
Conduct, both polite enough.

Sir.Lancelot R1
Jah, sounds jerk actions,
Sounds 'some apologies,
Would probably be recognized 'generally as good to apologize even more,
'Necessary though, questionable,
Necessary or should to X, would be helpful,
Sir.Lancelot R1 would be helped by explaining why Logan has not apologized or done enough,
But I'm sure all this will be addressed later by both sides.

Bella3sp R1
Brings up questions of why would apologies and actions thus far be not enough.

Sir.Lancelot R2
Argues that a vocal video apology is not 'enough of an apology,
Argues that other streamers were also hurt by his actions.

I'd think myself, that at some points, it's better to just say alright enough,
Than to keep picking at a situation, let wounds heal,
Picking just prevents healing.

Sir.Lancelot argues Logan has more power than most people, to make more substantial apology.

Though Sir.Lancelot argues Logan has harmed others,
Sir.Lancelot also tries to focus on Logan's own issues,
Arguing he needs more fully confront and apologize to move past issue himself.

Sir.Lancelot notes the outrageousness of Logan's actions,
But I am still unsure 'what the cutoff for apology is, seems vague subjective,
Though Sir.Lancelot argues it is not so vague, that Logan must simply do as much right as he did wrong.

Bella3sp R2
An apology 'is enough for a number of people,
Though I think myself, people may doubt apologies,
Though this usually occurs if they are used so often of 'same problems one believes they are insincere.

Logan being a scammer,
I return to my thought of 'why should he atone or apologize,
Because it's the right thing to do,
Though arguably he has already apologized,
Though not as 'deep as Sir.Lancelot argues he should have.

Bella3sp makes argument of ways that Logan has suffered for his bad/immoral videos.
Argues he donated a ton of money,
Though. . Money is relative,
I think of the The Widow’s Offering, in the Bible.
Still,
Then a question pops up, where Sir.Lancelot argues Logan is able to make more change than normal people,
Vs personal redemption, which Sir.Lancelot also argues for,
The two seems a 'bit different.

Sir.Lancelot R3
Hm, Sir.Lancelot arguing suicide money donation doesn't count,
As it is not apology to Japan.

Bella3sp R3
Hm, read through, I think what might sway me is going back and looking if he apologizes to Japan or what in his apology videos.

Leaning Thinking
Hm, apologizes to various people, what I most notice is victim and family apology,
Which 'seems to me to matter more than apology to Japan,
Though there 'is the various disrespect of culture in R1 Sir.Lancelot mentioned,
Bella3spmentions free speech later on,
Eh, if the actions unrelated to suicide were the issue, people would mention it more online and in debate,
Plenty of jackass videos online rude to people and cultures,
Arguably bigger issue the suicide, suicide more addressed in this debate,
Suicide wereguild, apology to victim and family.

RFV
Eh, my arguments vote goes to Bella3sp.
Sources, both used.
Legibility, both understandable.
Conduct, both polite.

First reading notes,
Pro implies that Jefferson 'should be removed,
Auschwitz cannot be considered a poor teaching tool,
Change location allows removal to museum,
The statue of liberty is 'ours, not any one individuals.

Second Reading,
ProR1
I prefer a community vote,
Over a 'commission,
Community vote 'ensures that those who 'live in the area, are making the decision.

However, this and later comments by Con, nudge me towards Tie,
Because 'both debaters, I 'think, see the blanket policy of removing X monuments, as flawed.
Interjecting my own view, were there a community of racists, why 'should they remove a racist statue,
Though by this I am not saying that Confederate Statues and Flags are racist,
I think Confederate descendants 'ought honor their ancestors,
Though if the lands their decedents once lived have been taken over by other people's, well, those people have 'less reason to honor the Confederates.

Though such brings up a question of ancient sites,
Such as when some ancient temple in the Middle East get's exploded,
Seems a desecration of history, even if they are of different beliefs. . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I don't think Pro's remove to museum example is flawed,
That's commonly what is meant by remove to another location.

ConR1

Jah, people are subjective,
Though arguably that is why ProR1 argues for commission, and Con later on argues for public vote or other.

Auschwitz is an interesting example,
I would 'imagine but not know, that Neo Nazis who don't deny the Holocaust,
Might view Auschwitz as a symbol of various ideas they endorse,
But it's 'also 'not those ideas,
It is the ideas as Con says of reminder and teaching.

Yet by reminding it must also be a symbol of various cruelty, racism, unjustness.
But ProR2 later makes the argument that I would make, that Auschwitz is 'more symbol 'against those ideas, that state is not endorsing such,
And that people more than not view it such.
. .

Mount Rushmore, another interesting example,
One that falls into my earlier thought of a state of Racists supporting their Racist monuments,
Not that I'm saying the Confederacy was or was not racist.

ProR2

Both sides have been trying to chip nickel dime, definitions,
I've just been skimming both a bit,

Mount Roosevelt is obvious 'why it should not be removed,
Because people 'value it,
Because it is 'Ours,

Con argues against Pro removing monuments to private property for different reasons, later on I think.

Hm, Pro claims monuments are 'generally poor teaching tools,
Debate description said this is an "On Balance Debate"
But that goes both ways,
I'm still leaning towards a tie.

Eh, some country builds something,
Another country steals it,
It is then become a trophy,
Auschwitz being built by Nazis, doesn't prevent it from being a monument after the Allies took it,
Still, this is 'my argument, not Con's.

ConR2

Debate 'could be considered hazy,
Not all countries have so much free speech,
That even museum or private property, the state or community 'could demand removal of a monument.

Con brings up Commission, possible problems.

Con argues their plan,
That offensive monuments should not be removed by 'government, but by petition,
Though Con's not really saying they should or should not be removed.

Con playing to vagueness of debate, many places,
Fair, but moves me more to 'tie, than Pro or Con.

Hm, I'm looking back on sources throughout the debate,
Not been 'big for either side really.

ProR3

'Mostly arguments on definitions, semantics, as both have been doing throughout.

ConR3

I don't think Pro's plans are too flawed, but I think both sides compromise a bit,
Eh, I'm probably going to vote tie.

RFV
Arguments, both made convincing arguments,
But to my view both compromised a fair bit,
And watered down their sides, because the sides would 'need to be watered down,
Subjective in such a debate, (Maybe)
Well watered down of wither tastes a bit like water.

Sources were not a huge factor in this debate,
Definitions, arguments of what other people did,
Not many sources from either.

Both sides legible, understandable.

Conduct equal,
Though disagreed in places, that's just debate.

@Reason for Vote
Lyricism: RM 2
Lyricism: Lance 1

Flow: RM 1
Flow: Lance 1

Diss: RM 1
Diss: Lance 2

Rhyme: RM 1
Rhyme: Lance 1

RM longer sentences played to lyricism, and if read quick flowed,
Lance shorter sentences flowed and made rhymes more obvious,
But RM rhymes and flow 'also there, just the shorter sentences made Lance's more visually obvious on 'first look,
So still a tie in rhyme and flow, since different methods of reading made either obvious,
Lance focused on diss more than RM, more personal, more sources, 'seemed like,
If there was a brag category, might be I would have put RM a higher point for that.

@NoOneInParticular
Too much profanity, personal insults, styles of bragging, for my liking.
I suppose I like 'some rap, but not 'generally speaking.

@BothAndDebate
@Arguements Bella3sp
Whether Devon wanted to make a point about how they viewed Sex and Gender as the same, or carelessness.
Allowing vagueness in title and description, lead to much of the debate being sidetracked.
'Ideas are subjective, words are subjective, and both change Bella3sp argues.

Bella3sp doesn't make the argument that sex and gender are the same,
But that they are different, though she also includes examples of intersex, to safeguard all her bases.
Devon spends too much time (Because of debate vagueness) stating that sex and gender are the same,
Which would be more fine if the debate was Sex and Gender are the same, or ought be viewed as the same.

Mostly Devon loses arguments because his title and description, as well as arguments made many fractured pieces in various directions.

Bella3sp was given at 'least two goalposts, of which she only needed to score one of any to win,
Whether gender as language changing, intersex as an example,
You 'don't want to give your opponent multiple goalposts.
. . .

If Devon had focused more on historical examples of people defining sex and gender as the same, I think they would have done better, but again,
Devon not only has to prove claim they are the same, but that there are only 2.
And debate doesn't even say 'human.

@Sources Tie
Both sides used sources to try to back their claims.

@Legibility Tie
When a debate goes to piecemeal, with a ton of grey boxes,
And 'many words sentences specifically disagreed on,
My concentration in following the debate, fractures a bit,
Though this might just be a me thing,
But both did this.

@Conduct Tie
Bella3sp didn't seem to intentionally try to skip rounds,
Devon Extend doesn't count as argument,
No one 'particularly rude, tie.

@NoOneInParticular
I suggest you don't read this, as it's more for me,
But fee l free if you want to, it just rambles, so I don't recommend it.

Useful generalities, a trait of people using concepts,
Men are stronger than women,
People 'specifically mean human men and women,
Praying Mantis Females are stronger than Male Praying Mantis,

People with X or Y genes,
I don't really know how that works with various animals, or plants.

Dresses are feminine,
Eh, kilts, togas.

"Gender is something you choose to identify as"
Doesn't really make sense to me, or gender in general.
Some cultures used eunuchs in harems,
Some people choose to identify as American, yet xenophobic Americans might not call them American, even if according to the law they have papers,
Course one's 'sex ought make them a man or a woman, objectively,
But then some people get treated as the opposite sex in prison,
Even the objective, is subject to subjective people,
Rambling.

'Does gender only appear in humans,
I know 'self identifying comes up a lot in some definitions of gender,
But I've see videos of seals abusing penguins,
Yeah this thought is weird, but eventually in my mind it makes an example.
Course one doesn't identify an X as an X, even if one treats an X as an X, they think of it as an X I can use to X.

The 'gentler sex,
Some Victorian man might say of women,
But even an effeminate man, wouldn't say the effeminate man was 'of, but perhaps 'like the gentler sex.

Devon missed too much of the debate,
And didn't really get beyond the stating of position,
Bella3sp was around for all the debate, by making 'any arguments, made better arguments than none,
Perhaps Bella3sp's arguments would have developed more if Devon had been around, but life calls, and one get's sidetracked.

Sources, both sides used roughly same amount,
Both sides understandable,
Devon apologized in comments, for missing debate, "Sorry I got really sidetracked. Not making any excuses." - #5

Reason for vote in posts #9 and #10, of this debate's comments.

I don't think a character being manipulated into or being prophecied to tragedy,
Makes for less tragedy,
Though it's the more a hero fights against the manipulation or fate, yet fails,
That makes it more a tragedy.
Oedipus was destined,
Macbeth was destined,
Yet they are still tragic hero and fallen hero.

I think Sir.Lancelot would have done well to highlight more what Anakin 'was, before his fall,
Rather than too much focus on what he 'could have been.
This could have been contrasted with whiteflame's character, who Sir.Lancelot could have painted as 'lacking heroic characteristics as they are commonly known.
Yes, Anti-Hero, but Utopian goals, many villains/anti-villains have such as goal.
. .
Line between hero, anti-hero, villain, anti-hero,
Often blurred with real life leaders,
Arguably blurred with fictional characters as well.
, ,
While Vader is a villain,
Anikin was not,
Yet Kiritsugu Emiya sounds to have been on the dark path throughout life.
. .
Not that I'm saying highlighting what he 'could have been was bad,
Bit of Saruman's tragedy, is all his wasted potential, what he 'might have been.
. .
it's just that a contrast between the two is needed, Anikin and Kiritsugu Emiya.
Kiritsugu Emiya's utopia ideal was also a pretty big lost potential.

To me Darth Vader's death 'lessens his tragedy some,
Yes it's sad he had not a happy life with his family,
But there is redemption in his final act, he has saved his son,
Not all was lost.
. .
Though I suppose Kiritsugu Emiya has 'similar redemption of a sort,
Saving Shirou,
But the burning of the city 'adds to his mistakes and tragedy.

I 'do think Sir.Lancelot showed Vader when Anakin felt grief, regret, Vader's physical and emotional suffering, regret,
That even when Vader showed consideration for his past,
But whiteflame makes an effective attack on times Vader 'lacks it,
As well as whiteflame pointing out in contrast Kiritsugu Emiya's frequent regrets and suffering.

Vader and Kiritsugu Emiya 'both end up sacrificing so much, yet failed to achieve their goals.

I actually think it 'is a bit tragic, the Nazi's, or. . . people in general,
One is loyal to one's country, unsure what to do, not wanting to harm one's country, one becomes subject toy soldier disavowing responsibility,
Greater resulted the outside force, pressure.
Not that I'm saying it excuses them,
But many fine people in life, ruined themselves obeying orders, what they were, and might have been.

My vote goes towards Con, as Pro just a bit late in comparing Anakin to Kiritsugu Emiya, and late in criticizing Kiritsugu Emiya.
Criticisms and comparisons Pro 'did make, just weren't airtight, both suffered, lost family, lost potential futures.

. . .
If you read this vote this far, and are able to vote on this site,
Whether for me or against me,
Consider voting on a debate of mine,
https://www.debateart.com/debates/4497-ought-be-a-legal-right-to-dueling

R1
"It would be good"
Recognizable enough common idea of moral law that everyone should follow.

People 'do need food,
But instead of 'giving it, people could be offered work,
Though arguably not everyone are employers,
Arguably not everyone 'can be employed where they 'are in life,
Arguably some people 'have jobs but not enough food,
Or some employers might prefer giving half food, instead of work.

Best.Korea makes argument that there are people of plenty who could afford it,
That pain is bad (Hunger),
Reasonable arguments,
Though Intelligence_06 can still argue against it or provide alternatives.

I expect Intelligence_06's argument will fail due to the richer giving to the poorer,
That 'everyone has food,
Rather than make the poor pay all the taxes.

R2
As
Best.Korea says "Why would urging people who have zero food to offer food be any useful? "
There 'is a reason Best.Korea mentioned the obese in round 1.

It 'would be good if everyone acted good,
But I'd argue the debate is more a 'specific action,
Though Best.Korea might say it's an action which requires an action,
Thus putting off claims that people would not be able to do it, or that it could result in disaster.

Still,
Sure people should 'help each other,
But if one says a person should do X because it helps people,
Well, maybe X doesn't really help people.

Intelligence_06 continues argument that people with zero or little food would be harmed,
But this really doesn't work,
As Best.Korea says "need to live"
People with zero or little food, need it, thus wouldn't give their food.

A better argument might be the claim that 'forcing people to give food,
Would remove something of value to them, their freedom to not give their food,
Of course this could be argued against be Best.Korea,
Just a line of my thought.

Conserving energy and resources,
Would make more sense,
If used as teach a man to fish, vs give a man a fish, way.
Rather than giving food,
People should be given what they need to grow and sustain themselves.

Intelligence_06 conclusions,
Seem to me more 'different debates,
Than this one,
People need have 'some assumptions/give in's for a debate, or life to be practical.

R3
Best.Korea can't doesn't mean shouldn't argument,
Can be argued against by stating that the giving of food won't work for this or that reason,
But Intelligence_06 has focused more on the zero food part in this debate thus far.

At this point Intelligence_06 appears to forfeit.

So arguments to Best.Korea,
Intelligence_06 'did use sources, but they didn't factor heavily into their arguments, so tie,
Legibility, both legible, tie,
Well, Intelligence_06 forfeited rather than ghosted the debate, so tie conduct I suppose.

. . .
If you read this vote this far, and are able to vote on this site,
Whether for me or against me,
Consider voting on a debate of mine,
https://www.debateart.com/debates/4497-ought-be-a-legal-right-to-dueling

Pro made the argument that Trump did not accept defeat,
Made the argument that he encouraged his followers to march to the capital,

Con makes the argument that Pro needs to define responsibility,
And states Pro must prove Trump had both intent and actions.

Which Pro 'does have the actions of Trump that lead to the even, intended or not,
Though even without intention,
Being careless with power, a person still bears at least 'some responsibility.
(But without intention is my argument, not Pros)

Pro's argument is more about 'magnitude,
Than realization of end result,
Though it's a bit gray, protest, riot, insurrection,
Like tap, a push, a shove, a hit.

Regardless,
Pro argues that people have a common understanding of responsibility,
And that Trumps understanding of the event was implicit in his tweet (Round 1)

Cons argument around free will 'would derail a lot of debates,
Which is why people generally just assume free will,
Well, or responsibility free will or not,
But point is it's a sidestep.

I suppose Con could have argued Trump had no intent for an 'insurrection,
That he can only be held partially responsible for other's actions,
That he told them to leave (Eventually)

Con might have also argued it was not 'truly an 'insurrection,
But they didn't stick around.

But even if the debate had continued,
There are numerous events Pro could have used to argue his position.

Pro made their arguments, backed with sources, argued against Con's 1 round of arguments, stuck through the debate,
Arguments, sources, conduct to Pro.

. . .
If you read this vote this far, and are able to vote on this site,
Whether for me or against me,
Consider voting on a debate I'm in,
https://www.debateart.com/debates/4497-ought-be-a-legal-right-to-dueling

It's a topic that relates to many people in life,
Worth considering,
But setup of debate could use improvement.

Short reason, Arguments,
less that 10% 'just wasn't managed by Pro,
Con managed more than 10%.

Sources,
Both sides sources backed their claims.

Legibility,
Both sides understandable.

Conduct,
Both were polite and finished debate.

Long reason, Arguments,
As Nyxified says,
"The actual percentage of marriages that end in divorce is irrelevant so long as I can prove that it is above 10%,"

Title and description 'can be important in a debate,
As the opponent can intentionally or unintentionally have a 'different debate, than the instigator intended.

Half of all marriages end in divorce,
Might have been a better title,
With the description describing how this is a popular saying or view by people,
Pro argues that it is more or less true,
Con argues that it is more or less false.

Is how I might have done this debate,
Not that I'm a great debater, just my thought.
'Maybe have limited divorce rate to specific region or country, if such was intention.

Round 1

prefix,
prefix' questions add to the vagueness of the debate,
Implying that Con could at the 3rd question say 11%,
And the debate go on fine from there.

Nyxified,
Notes flaws in debate structure and makes arguments placing divorce rate worldwide above 10%.

Use though, depends on the 'use I think,
Even if socially separated, people might still like to cherish 'being married,
Or appreciate financial benefits from such,
Legal divorce rate might matter if people want to believe they can always reconcile in life,
Or avoid poverty from divorce.

Round 2,
Not much to say,
prefix realizes error,
Nyxified notes that the debate setup is just difficult to change from.

Round 3,
prefix arguments are decent 'if they are arguing divorce 'need not be so high,

But when debate is claiming overall percent for 'all marriages. . .
And the percent 'required for Con is vague between 11% and 50%,
Another title might have been,
You have an automatic 50% chance of divorce when getting married.

This allowing arguments that the choices one makes, lifestyle led, leading, expecting to lead, can be influenced, can be influencing on marriage stress.

Round 4,
prefix makes an effort that 2/3 is not bad, for Pro and the three points laid out in round 1,
But,
It's a bit like getting two thirds of the way to the goal,
'Need the goal,
'Unless it was clear laid out in title and description, that voters would vote based on who verified the most of those three points.
. .
This 'can be stated in round 1,
But is 'better stated in title and description,
And as Nyxified notes throughout debate, setup 'just wasn't favorable to Pro.

Future argument is interesting,
But requires a 'will be in debate/title.

Last thoughts,
I didn't mention Nyxified Round 3, or Round 5 for either,
As it's the issue noted at the start,
Debate setup resulted in equal or greater than 11% divorce rate.

. . .
If you read this vote this far, and are able to vote on this site,
Whether for me or against me,
Consider voting on a debate I'm in,
https://www.debateart.com/debates/4497-ought-be-a-legal-right-to-dueling

Convincing arguments Pro,
Pro made arguments that were within reason,
Con made no arguments.

Sources,
Pro used sources for some claims,
Con didn't use sources.

Legibility,
Dhdhfjdbdh,
Even with a Google search, does not come up as anything commonly recognized as a word that I saw.

Conduct,
It's bad conduct to accept a debate, but not debate,
Even if Mharman realizes they 'ought not do this.

More details,
Numerology, seeing symbolism 'everywhere,
Seems a risky method of truth to me.
Not that cultures don't 'have symbolism throughout their history,
But to me the recorded 'historical reasons, are more important than doing math and switching of numbers years after.
I'm not aware of the connection between the number 7 and evolution.

Ah, there it is,
"church fathers often had different ideas about the creation account mentioned in the first chapter of Genesis"
- TheAcademicChristian R1
And goes on to mention Augustine as an example.

Well, I suppose time 'might be different for God,
Though TheAcademicChristian mentions the 'vastness of time, rather than perspective,
I mention perspective, as what 'is a day?
Different planets turn at different rates I assume,
Different sizes, different days,
Or with the moon, we only ever see it's one face (Though at night) But something could always face the sun.
Are 24 hours assumed 'before the Earth was created? (I ramble here)

Polytheism and Idol Worship,
What concerns me about this argument,
Is how much of the Bible and Christianity then, becomes symbolic?
Not that one 'can't be a symbolic Atheistic Christian,
Or that only 'some parts are symbolic,
Just the line of thought I go down with this argument.

De novo is a Latin term that means "anew," "from the beginning," or "afresh."
I suppose God 'could have done evolution outside of the Eden the Bible mentions,
Yet created Adam and Eve inside it, for some purpose,
Though Atheists would think it unlikely, it 'does sidestep the argument that evolution means the creation of Adam and Eve 'cannot be.
The debate being whether evolution is 'compatible with the Bible, not whether the Bible is true or false.

jamgiller made a reasonable argument, that implementation of the death penalty more often in cases,
Would lead to innocent deaths.
jamgiller used sources,
Was more legible by saying 'anything,
And better conduct, by being there for the debate.

I suppose one could argue be more liberal with 'enacting the death penalty,
But then limit it to cases that are beyond doubt,
Though, with how many times cases have messed up evidence with the wrong DNA or browbeating an innocent accused into confessing,
The number of beyond any doubt cases goes down,
And I suppose one can 'always doubt. . .

Anyway,
Doesn't matter, as PipTheWarrior made no arguments.

Sir.Lancelot made apologies for the forfeit, seeming to have interruptions in life,
So conduct, equal enough,
However the forfeits greatly harmed Sir.Lancelot in convincing argument,
As no argument, one unable to press one's point or attack the opponents argument.

Both sides were about the same in legibility,
Though I had difficulty throughout the debate,
In following arguments, claims, and logic.

I was unable to see what contradictions Sir.Lancelot mentioned in Slainte's sources.
I understand Sir.Lancelot's argument of the vaccinated being better protected against the vaccine,
Though Slainte makes that argument about more vaccines meaning more hospitalization,
Which I didn't 'quite follow,
I assume even too much 'water, can harm a person,
Doesn't 'quite follow 'no vaccinations,
But Slainte's argument 'does make me leery of government and 'professionals, that they might make early claims or lie or force.

Hm,
I see Sir.Lancelot's graph in #2,
65+
Rate per 100,000 among unvaccinated individuals. 100000/220.2=454.13
Rate per 100,000 among those who received at least one booster dose. 100000/78=1282.05

This 'sounds more deaths prevented, vaccinated dying 1/454.13 compared to 1/1282.05
Then 'hospitalizations by R1
1 in 662(over placebo baselines). The same document shows that the Pfizer trial has an SAE rate as 1 in 990(over placebo baselines)Combined, the SAE rate is 1 in 800
. . .

But Slainte makes many other arguments,
That again because of forfeited rounds Sir.Lancelot does not manage to address in the debate,
Such as Number Needed To Vaccinate.
. . .

Well, I'm not convinced that Covid vaccines do more harm, or more good,
Nor am I giving sources to either side,
Both used them,
But I found it difficult to keep track of them, validate them as true, or compare them.

Arguments go to Slainte,
'Mainly due to the forfeited rounds by Sir.Lancelot, though they 'did make an effort in #8,
It's not very 'convincing to quick post only a source, or in a different round, extend.

Solby, R1
Makes argument on people's ability to not have sex,
Thus for most people,
'Choice to be pregnant.

Phenenas, R1
Makes argument that early on, fetus lacks both pain or consciousness/self.
Their argument on suffering,
Makes me think of what if an individual killed another person who was sleeping,
But of course that's not what Phenenas is saying, I think.

Phenenas makes argument that 'forcing pregnancies to be carried would 'cause suffering, where none might have existed before,
(Their argument of early fetus lacking pain/consciousness/self)
They also make argument that life threatening abortions might not be preformed, that would put the mother's life at high risk.

Phenenas argument that sex is harmless because of their first argument on what they claim a fetus lacks, 'Only works if their first argument is convincing.

Phenenas includes sources for their claims.

Solby, R2
Makes argument on how abortion shows a complete disregard for the fetus as a life,
'But they still need to address Phenenas's claims in 'some fashion,
Whether making argument that fetus 'does have something to it, whether individualism/pain/consciousness/self/soul/sacred value so on.
Or that we ought value the fetus for some other reason,
Which they try with sexual education,
The flaw of which are the existence of STDs and pregnancy, 'even if one can have an abortion, not really 'pleasant.
But I don't know yet if Phenenas makes this argument on sex education point.

Solby makes argument that children can be adopted, if there is danger of them growing up unwanted by their parents.

Solby makes argument and sources, of dangers involved in abortion.

Phenenas, R2
Makes argument that Solby's claim that pregnancies might occur at higher frequency, not backed by statistics,
Using a 'tiny 1 as a source, but it 'is a source,
And backs their claim.
(Observation by me, that sources can be wrong or misleading, not that Phenenas's is or is not)

Phenenas argument that is is wrong to guilt women into not having an abortion,
This argument 'Only applies if their first claim is correct,
Of the early fetus having no pain/consciousness/soul.
However Solby did not strongly address this argument of Phenenas's.

Phenenas makes argument that it would be cruel to bring so many into existence and put them in foster care, which can be a hard existence.
This argument 'Only applies if their first claim is correct,
Of the early fetus having no pain/consciousness/soul.
However Solby did not strongly address this argument of Phenenas's.

Phenenas makes argument that Solby's source on the dangers of pregnancy/abortion,
Are not backed by some other researchers,
Uses sources.
(Observation by me, that sources can be wrong or misleading, not that Solby's is or is not)
. . . . . . . . . .

Overall, Solby does not manage to make a strong case for why we must consider the fetus sacred,
Rather their argument 'assumes the sacredness of it,
Which is 'fair, assuming that others hold the same assumption.
However Phenenas disagrees with this assumption, makes argument for why 'not to consider it so sacred, and uses sources to back their arguments.

For me this is the biggest point in the debate,
One not addressed by Solby,
I would say near all of Phenenas's other arguments require the truth of this argument,
Which isn't a bad thing,
But it's why my vote of argument goes to Phenenas,

Sources to Phenenas, as they used the prolifically, as well as making argument towards discrediting a number of Solby's sources.
Spelling and Grammar, equal in both sides.
Conduct, both were polite, respectful, showed an interest in each other's arguments, thoughts towards the subject.
. . .

Bit Shameless Plugs to Myself Below,
Consider voting on a debate?
https://www.debateart.com/debates/4497-ought-be-a-legal-right-to-dueling

Some forum topics on the subject of abortion,
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7557-supreme-court-votes-to-overturn-roe-v-wade-draft-shows?page=1
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/8045-every-pro-lifer-always-without-fail-gets-it-wrong-on-abortion?page=6
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/8797-schelling-points-around-personhood?page=1
An old debate of mine,
https://web.archive.org/web/20210621051416/https://www.debate.org/debates/Abortion/782/

Devon,
Makes assertions until,
"You can't identify as something you are not.
If you were born male you cannot say you are a female,
you were not born with a uterus and you are unable to give birth."

From a certain point of view, occurs to me, I suppose.,
But of course, people often prefer, certain points of view,
Or 'specifically refer to a point of view, even if they know other points of view exist,
They 'prefer valuing a certain point of view.

A person 'can say they are female,
Other's may not agree, or treat them that way though,
And outcomes may result, that would not have if they had been biologically female,
That other's do not prefer said point of view,
Sports for instance, the differences between natural born men and women.
. .
Or society 'might agree,
'Some societies,
Course societies can say true, false, or in between statements.

Eh, some women can't have kids.

napzu,
Makes argument that definitions of words change,
Which is fair,
But they would have made a better argument by examples of gender/sex in history.
Also arguably that a person's social definition, personage,
Doesn't change their biology so much.
Well, eunuchs had some body changes.

napzu makes an assertion in round 5 though,
Rather than argument in my view.

My Vote,
I don't think either side really put forth enough argument of rounds into this debate to get argument or conduct points,
No sources, no grammar bad enough on either side to add or remove points.

Debate 'Topic is a bit fragmented as,
People argue whether Sex and Gender is the same word,
Whether an individual 'can change their Sex,
Whether gender, in the social constructs definition, is meaningful.

Debate could be improved by agreed upon definitions and ideas in the introduction,
Baseline Give Ins, Assumptions, Some type of base on which to construct arguments,
Part of debate was disagreeing on base ideas.
. . .

Not that one 'can't disagree on base ideas in a debate,
But I think 'this debate would have been better off saying there are only two sexes,
'Unless the instigator 'also wanted to argue whether sex and gender are the same,
Which I 'assume, but do not know, that they did not.