To be clear, R1 is simply time alotted for the purpose of providing affirmative arguments for our respective cases, correct? As in, no responses to yours?
I won't mention this in the debate, but I just got a client who the police arrested for assault despite substantial evidence (such as her bleeding profusely and the alleged victim barely having a scratch) that the victim was trying to kill her and her son with a knife. Sometimes (at least in America), you're taking a big risk just by calling the cops. And sometimes, getting charged is a matter who can call the cops first.
This debate didn't mirror beliefs aside from the fact that I do believe political correctness is problematic for society. For example, you just referenced the term LBGTQ. In my experience, most transgender men and women aren't interested in same-sex relationships and thus I could see a transgender man/woman taking a offense at their inclusion into a topic about same-sex marriage. Even though your intent is not to offend and even though one can readily infer what you mean, they might call you the worst person in the world. I don't think that kind of discourse is healthy in our society.
Honestly, I felt 'gays' helped out with the character limit as opposed to saying same-sex over and over again.
This debate didn't mirror beliefs aside from the fact that I do believe political correctness is problematic for society. For example, you just referenced the term LBGTQ. I'm experience, most transgender men and women aren't interested in same-sex relationships and thus I could see a transgender man/woman taking a offense at their inclusion into a topic about same-sex marriage. Even though it's not to offend and even though one can readily what you mean, they might call the worst person in the world. I don't think that kind of discourse is healthy in our society.
The cockiness/arrogance is pure theatrics. As the comments show, I thanked tejretics for a fine debate and left it at that. Some people get put off by it. Some people have fun reading it. It's hit or miss.
Re: "Different people have different priorities and concerns when it comes to politics. One smart person could be chiefly concerned about healthcare reformation, while another smart person could be more concerned about entanglement in foreign conflicts.... In more general measures, one smart person would be concerned with potential benefits an action could bring about, while another person would be more concerned with the potential costs....."
And there's the rub. Two smart people can have different priorities and are therefore perfectly capable of voting down either side of the ticket, so what good does eliminating stupid people do for Presidential/Senatorial elections other than silence their voices? This is where either more discussion about the mechanics of smart-voter voting tendencies is needed or where you need to abandon the smart-voter paradigm and assimilate the loyalty argument since I don't see anything in the resolution that requires you to limit yourself to smart/stupid voters.
Re: "Hypothetically speaking, what would you need to see or read that would convince you that smart voters pick the best candidates? What I was going for was "More informed voters -> More informed decisions -> Better candidates/candidates who make more informed decisions"
You'd probably need to abandon the More informed voters -> More informed decisions logic. CON's point about flat earthers is a pretty hard counter. As we just discussed, a generally informed voter can justify voting down either end of the ticket due to having different priorities. You'd either need to push for a test which accounts for a LOT MORE than basic knowledge (which would then open the door for a debate about elitism and potential corruption, but at the same time could be handled depending on evidence you provided in regards to the downward spiraling state of the country) or just assimilate CON's loyalty counter-argument.
I had checked my character counter prior to posting my R1 and it was 7981 characters. After seeing your R1, I checked the character limit on my R1 and it was 7981 characters when I pasted it into word unformatted. I then checked again by pasting it with the formatting (which I don't usually do) and it was 8035 characters. Don't know why that is, but I have no problem providing evidence (probably video recording of me going into word and hitting the character count button) and making a policy argument on the issue.
On the other hand, I don't care about sources being counted in the character limit, so I'm fine stipulating that they are not counted . . . especially given the weird discrepancy in how stuff is being counted.
I don't think that's the natural conclusion to make. I mean yeah, on its face, it's one of the things that seems like common sense (why wouldn't smart voters be able to pick the best candidates?), but when you think about----not so much.Take the most recent Presidential election for example. There are a lot of smart/knowledgeable people on both sides of the aisle who would pass the citizenship test with flying colors, but that doesn't explain how two sets of smart people come to two different conclusions. Smart voter A will say "I want Trump" and smart voter B will say "I want Hillary." Because of the lack of development on the mechanics for how precisely smart voters are most likely to pick the best candidates, CON is able to retort with "You cannot test people for knowledge, justify it as wanting intelligent leaders and then say you have filtered out disloyal or sinister voters and leaders at all. I hope I have made this crystal clear." More discussion on the mechanics and how precisely they produce better leaders was what your case really needed, IMO. Or better yet, no need to even restrict yourself to the smart/stupid paradigm. Going by the resolution alone, I don't think you even need to get into that. If CON wants to test for loyalty, you can say "You know what? I agree! Lets make a test that is centered around loyalty!"
Same here! Doesn't matter to me who wins; this debate was fun and hearkened back a lot to my old days on DDO! Thanks for the debate and cheers for being a brilliant opponent!
Thanks for the debate! Was fun!
To be clear, R1 is simply time alotted for the purpose of providing affirmative arguments for our respective cases, correct? As in, no responses to yours?
I won't mention this in the debate, but I just got a client who the police arrested for assault despite substantial evidence (such as her bleeding profusely and the alleged victim barely having a scratch) that the victim was trying to kill her and her son with a knife. Sometimes (at least in America), you're taking a big risk just by calling the cops. And sometimes, getting charged is a matter who can call the cops first.
Typos! Corrected version:
This debate didn't mirror beliefs aside from the fact that I do believe political correctness is problematic for society. For example, you just referenced the term LBGTQ. In my experience, most transgender men and women aren't interested in same-sex relationships and thus I could see a transgender man/woman taking a offense at their inclusion into a topic about same-sex marriage. Even though your intent is not to offend and even though one can readily infer what you mean, they might call you the worst person in the world. I don't think that kind of discourse is healthy in our society.
Appreciate the feedback.
Honestly, I felt 'gays' helped out with the character limit as opposed to saying same-sex over and over again.
This debate didn't mirror beliefs aside from the fact that I do believe political correctness is problematic for society. For example, you just referenced the term LBGTQ. I'm experience, most transgender men and women aren't interested in same-sex relationships and thus I could see a transgender man/woman taking a offense at their inclusion into a topic about same-sex marriage. Even though it's not to offend and even though one can readily what you mean, they might call the worst person in the world. I don't think that kind of discourse is healthy in our society.
The cockiness/arrogance is pure theatrics. As the comments show, I thanked tejretics for a fine debate and left it at that. Some people get put off by it. Some people have fun reading it. It's hit or miss.
Re: "Different people have different priorities and concerns when it comes to politics. One smart person could be chiefly concerned about healthcare reformation, while another smart person could be more concerned about entanglement in foreign conflicts.... In more general measures, one smart person would be concerned with potential benefits an action could bring about, while another person would be more concerned with the potential costs....."
And there's the rub. Two smart people can have different priorities and are therefore perfectly capable of voting down either side of the ticket, so what good does eliminating stupid people do for Presidential/Senatorial elections other than silence their voices? This is where either more discussion about the mechanics of smart-voter voting tendencies is needed or where you need to abandon the smart-voter paradigm and assimilate the loyalty argument since I don't see anything in the resolution that requires you to limit yourself to smart/stupid voters.
Re: "Hypothetically speaking, what would you need to see or read that would convince you that smart voters pick the best candidates? What I was going for was "More informed voters -> More informed decisions -> Better candidates/candidates who make more informed decisions"
You'd probably need to abandon the More informed voters -> More informed decisions logic. CON's point about flat earthers is a pretty hard counter. As we just discussed, a generally informed voter can justify voting down either end of the ticket due to having different priorities. You'd either need to push for a test which accounts for a LOT MORE than basic knowledge (which would then open the door for a debate about elitism and potential corruption, but at the same time could be handled depending on evidence you provided in regards to the downward spiraling state of the country) or just assimilate CON's loyalty counter-argument.
I had checked my character counter prior to posting my R1 and it was 7981 characters. After seeing your R1, I checked the character limit on my R1 and it was 7981 characters when I pasted it into word unformatted. I then checked again by pasting it with the formatting (which I don't usually do) and it was 8035 characters. Don't know why that is, but I have no problem providing evidence (probably video recording of me going into word and hitting the character count button) and making a policy argument on the issue.
On the other hand, I don't care about sources being counted in the character limit, so I'm fine stipulating that they are not counted . . . especially given the weird discrepancy in how stuff is being counted.
I don't think that's the natural conclusion to make. I mean yeah, on its face, it's one of the things that seems like common sense (why wouldn't smart voters be able to pick the best candidates?), but when you think about----not so much.Take the most recent Presidential election for example. There are a lot of smart/knowledgeable people on both sides of the aisle who would pass the citizenship test with flying colors, but that doesn't explain how two sets of smart people come to two different conclusions. Smart voter A will say "I want Trump" and smart voter B will say "I want Hillary." Because of the lack of development on the mechanics for how precisely smart voters are most likely to pick the best candidates, CON is able to retort with "You cannot test people for knowledge, justify it as wanting intelligent leaders and then say you have filtered out disloyal or sinister voters and leaders at all. I hope I have made this crystal clear." More discussion on the mechanics and how precisely they produce better leaders was what your case really needed, IMO. Or better yet, no need to even restrict yourself to the smart/stupid paradigm. Going by the resolution alone, I don't think you even need to get into that. If CON wants to test for loyalty, you can say "You know what? I agree! Lets make a test that is centered around loyalty!"
Thanks for clarifying!
And with that, I am off to marinate some ribs!
Same here! Doesn't matter to me who wins; this debate was fun and hearkened back a lot to my old days on DDO! Thanks for the debate and cheers for being a brilliant opponent!
Less of a chore for readers and to keep the debate nice and straight to the point.
Just for the record, this debate won't reflect my beliefs as I don't believe the government has any business in 'marriage' in the first place!
You know, I'll take this debate if you lower the character limit down to 8000!