Total votes: 45
ff by con. also bop wasnt challenged.
the bop was to prove the police did more harm/good. savant has given emprical evidence of how the police do good, there is admittedly some evil done, even he admitted to it, but more good than evil.
neonrider66 however tried to argue not that the police did more harm, but that they did harm and needed to reform.
i will assume "police" refers to the U.S.A police and not police of other nations or U.N. police, etc because that is what pro's preamble, arguements and sources are regarding. However Con compares the police of other nations.
there is a disconnect of sorts on this issue. How can we prove there is more/less harm/good done by police if there is no country without police? all con did is compare police against police. as neither side gave an example of a policeless country. but this doesnt satisfy the bop.
continuing on, pro believes con's arguementation to be a non sequitar as he con argues more for reform than give evidence that the police did more harm. Con asserts the standard of pro regarding police vs no police countries is a bad standard as he asserts that no such country without police exist.
Since no example of a policeless nation was given (and most likely doesnt exist) con failed to meet bop, therefore pro wins by default.
lancelot waves the cucumber thus instilling sheer terror in myriads of felines.
i disagree with cucumbers in salads.
personally i dont like eating cucumbers, but i enjoy cats jumping 4 feet in the air to avoid them.
neither has swayed my opinion on cucumbers, however it is evident which one of them can scare cats.
i feel that in the end pro addresses the concepts of why a 4 point system is bad, whereas con simply addresses the applications. pro shows the harms of the 4 point system and its applications: 1: sources do not instigate critical thinking or application, pro asserts that fact checking is the debater(s) priority and that sources can create a mask of indisputable fact, when really it could be illreputed evidence . con argues the application of peer reviewed information and discounts pro's assertion of personal experience. experience is vital and should be communicable in a debate.
2: grammar is not a large issue in most debates, as con points out, there are spelling and grammar checks to negate it. pro refers to the purpose of grammar is to be understood and is not needful to be weighed in debates if its understood.
3:conduct pro argues custom, autism etc is what affects conduct votes and that the process of weighing conduct should be normalized, wereas con wants a forced standard of conduct this site currently supports, which fails in regards to certain language barriers and interpretation of information. potentially facts can be disregarded because someone is offended, affecting more than conduct, but sources, grammar and arguementation.
4: arguement is where i feel both sides were weakest. the main purpose of a debate is the strength of the arguement, fact, opinion.
pro argues that the point for arguement could be affected BY the other 3 points, and i agree, an arguements strength is dependent on the others and the vote toward or against it can be misinterpretated. con argues with the metaphors presented...
also, just because alot of people use something, doesnt mean its the best, there is always room for improvement.
in total, i agree with pro on all points. 4 point system needs to be abolished entirely.
both disregarded the rules setup in the debate, integrity and adherence to it is necessary. regardless if 1 does wrong or not.
integrity of a framework is more important than voting procedures established to navigate a framework. see comments, meep and bsh1 guide.
more than 40% forfeit. Con had more science backed sources and arguements compared to pro.
extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, since it was not provided by pro, i consider this a non sequitur arguement
non sequitur troll debate. as someone who has pretended to be an animal in the past, i appreciate weavers siliness.
the attempt to make the debate serious by bella only serves to amplify the outrageousness of weavers claims.
i apologize, it has been a very busy week for me and i havent looked over the debate as i have promised.
i looked in depth to one of the links mps1213 and i determined it to be of higher scientific quality than the rest, it had a pround affect on my judgement of this debate, not so much the arguements, but on the topic of legalization. https://jaapl.org/content/early/2021/12/10/JAAPL.210034-21
its my opinion that neither sides read this article in depth by HBSc rafiei and doctor kolla. I advise both parties to read it all the way.
however, this one source as indepth as it is, doesnt determine the debate.
here are my general thoughts and weighing of the arguements.
there is enough evidence that weed needs to be moderated in at least 5 of the 7 applications lancelot mentioned.
the insanity plea is intresting, and as a prescedent in court i am very concerned about the future rulings until the supreme court can make its judgement... but there seems to be no scientific backing that weed causes people to be insane. insanity in a legal setting simply means "unable to determine right from wrong" and the links provided give no clear evidence that weed in high or low dosage directly affects that.
and expenses.
im sorry i just cant justify if a substances legality can be determined by cost and production. meth and cocaine were mentioned by mps1213 and i feel he missed and opportunity to "capitalize" on this (yes, i laughed at that, dont judge me!)
racism is independent of the drugs affects, now it is true that racism is involved WITH the usage of drugs and society's response to media and reports on this are... not very encouraging.
as you may have noticed, im not weighing arguements as well as i should. i simply didnt invest in the debate as i should have. for that, i beg your pardon. if either of you feel my vote is wrong, by all means i give you and mods free reign to remove it.
i know it is irrelevant to this debate, but i feel that legalization is slowed by 2 things. 1: money acquired from getting it from outside the country. 2: ignorance and fear by many people due to broad brushes and stereotypes by the media.
it is likely that within 5 years cannabis will become completely legal.
pro brought no sources, no premise, no arguement and forfeited.
con however assumed it in good faith and gave sources, a better conduct and arguement.
how do i score grammar for someone who didnt type anything? con gets grammar as well.
the bop is to prove/disprove that the us should have a free market vs a government regulated market.
i would have loved to see if there were examples of free markets just as a comparison.
ll= lancelot rm=rationalmadman
in round 2 rm tries to trick up ll and claims to speak directly to voters. This is certainly bad conduct on rm's part, it shows disregard and attempt at confusion. conduct given to ll.
in rounds 3-4 rm gives good links with an abundance of information... about government regulation (or lack thereof) in OTHER countries. i have to weigh this source against ll's sources in rounds 3 and 4 and unfortunately remove the point because of its relevance to topic and meeting bop of US economy. It was a hard call...
Finally, who has met bop and convinced me that us market should be free or regulated? rm. he has listed out in round 2 the staggering influence of government intervention and regulation in an otherwise would be dystopian US market.
that being said, this is about the market, not slavery, civil or criminal law. none of that should be weighed against the bop because i believe there is a distinct difference and seperation between them.
both parties did fine on grammar.
mutually agreed upon forfeiture, i award no points to either side.
However, i feel neither side accurately told us what love is. one said love is caring for the necessity of others. the other said freewill.
neither provided sufficent arguement for burden of proof as they debated descriptions and applications.
full concession
troll debate. no winner or loser.
In regards to vote.
Isaiah 43:13 mentioned by con is adequate evidence to prove that God does manipulate the will of man, This went uncontested and also unsupported however it does validate con's stance FOR calvinism. The other verses in themselves show the omniscience and omnipotence respectively. "I shall work and who shall let it?" this is a question directed at everything. Who can stop the Lord from his work? Not the will of man, not the heavens, not earth, not demons or angels or any other spirit.
Following on that, i believe the source in its self is acceptable in the context of this debate and really is the star of the show.
Pro's source of ephesians 1:1-5 is not broadened in the context of the actual verses.
1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:
2 Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:
4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
Verse 1 affirms paul is an apostle of Jesus Christ by the Will of God. verse 4-5 Talks about predestination of those who are Chosen in Jesus before earth was even created and predestinated US (referring to saints) To the adoption of children (Status, children of God) by Jesus Christ himself according to The good pleasure of his will.
And pro's website does not negate the process and certainty of predestination by focusing the faithful as predestined. Who made the saints faithful? If that question were answered and the answer was the saint/individual himself, Then he could potentially have won the debate.
Both had acceptable grammar and conduct.
Well then.
R1 BMD gives assertion that israel alliance isn't worth the "Millions of dollars" we give them.
R1 RM Asserts that Hamas is basically blackmailing the PLO (palestine liberation organization) and israel is fighting against it by being Kind or benevolent to the PLO. I have no idea who he is asserting that supports terrorist. he then states he will give evidence later on and compliments his own style of debating.
R2 BMD Talks about israel sinking one of the U.S. ships, Israel involving U.S. to find the WMD (weapons of mass destruction) How AIPAC affects U.S. congress through lobbying and How israel sent technology to china. Would have been more convincing with links!!!!
R2 RM Forfeits, loosing conduct point
R3 BMD gives counter idea to supporting israel, simply by not giving them money and asserts a 38 billion dollar net increase over 10 years. meaning we must give israel 3.8 billion dollars a year? LINKS!
R3 RM doesn't rebut nor give information he said he would in round 1
R4 BMD concedes round and says vote for him.
R4 RM complains about DA.com for 3 paragraphs and misspells ha e? Have? i have no idea but i assume in the context it is "We ha e a multi accounted on Sparrow and Type1" (Side note, investigate possibility of multi accounts. mods!) Con further re asserts that hamas is holding power over Palestine and doesn't allow them to deal with israel and is the legal representative at the U.N. Again, need links. Though i agree that hamas is an enemy to both plo and israel.
Last 2 paragraphs contain unneccessary cursing by RM
In light of the assertions and lack of evidence in all of this, i cannot award sources.
BMD shows better arguments, not by his merit or assertion but simply because con counters back with assertion when he does address it. Ill leave arguments neutral due to lack of evidence.
RM misspelled have, but i was able to understand it in context of sentence structure.
RM blatanly curses and goes off topic.
forfiture.
Forfiture.
Pro reasons that the tapes should be released for 3 reasons. 1: Other tapes aren't censored. 2: could censor out how to make bombs that are mentioned in detail in tapes. 3: Psychological studies.
Con argues 3 counter points: 1: Possibility of tapes being corrupted and make others look guilty. 2: would stir up controversy and make family re live the experience. 3: Appreciate the children of today (reference to now day shootings i suppose?)
Con does not refute Point 1 or 2 or 3. He simply argues the moral considerations and implications involved in possible corruption of tapes or rehashing of a bad circumstance to upset the family.
I feel neither side weighed the other evidence including the 946 page report released in 1999 nor considered availability of information to the local people, However, Pro has made more convincing arguments for tape release than con did in moral denouncement of it.
Both had acceptable grammar
Con forfeited on round 1 and 3.
So pro reasons lack of passion and friviolusness in regard to NOT learning/playing? a musical instrument
And con reasons promotion of craftsmanship (helps in future regard?) incentive in achievement and hand eye cordination he also said "Scientists say this" but no link or proof of his claim.
Pro rebutts about lack of passion not helping in con's arguements and may indeed be counter intuitive.
I award points to no one as i feel there are no convincing arguements or reliable sources on either side and both sides had acceptable grammar and conduct.
forfiture.
forfiture and bad conduct.
forfiture.
pro establishes BOP through consistent interaction based on our perception of reality.
Con argues that self is more defined through understanding and knowing of self apart from reality
Most of the arguement i feel is picking at straws and a few metaphors that went unaddressed, con in his attempt to show the uncertainty of knowing establishes that he himself does exist in not affirming himself with "Simulation" and that we are not "Everyone" however i feel he failed to address in what way a person could be "Everyone" in regards to interdependance on the "Simulation" we may or may not be involved in.
Pro does not adequately address the "Detachment" which is associated with solipsism in the sense of meaning, not perception or observation of surroundings.
At the last round pro misspelled vain... oi!
In order for con to convience a person associated with reality he had to link sources that we associate with reality to prove his point of our "simulation" I feel he could have proved his point better with more psychological links instead of definitions.
This was a tough one to judge, each person made grammar mistakes and what not. I feel like pro Got his best shot in round 3, but pro should have left the explanation in the comments of the accuracy of the reference in round 2. Con provided beats and changed rhythm in every round where pro stayed steady and stable with his. Con had more insults per stanza, however i feel pro's were more applicable to con.
Based on whos insults were more relevant id vote pro
Based on rhythm and Weight of insults id vote con.
I felt con had better rhythm and actual rhymes. His insults are more understandable to me. also pro forfited.
Forfiture.
forfiture.
forfiture.
Forfiture.
Forfiture.
Forfiture.
forfieture
forfeiture.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/545/comment_links/6772
https://www.debateart.com/debates/545/comment_links/6776
Forfeiture
https://www.debateart.com/debates/644/comment_links/6721
Full forfeit, Also, pro shows signs of being anti semitic in his approach and shows terrible understanding of historical facts and understanding of the jewish people entirely.
forfeiture
con forfeited.
Con presents better ethics and slightly better logic as to why babies shouldn't be killed
pros presentation of timelines would make the planet and thus life in general less sustainable should it be considered and negates the point of killing hitler in the first place
the potential of computers and technology that pro uses cannot negate the potential destruction mentioned by con
Due to forfeiting pro losses on conduct.
i leave con's sources aside in vote because it discusses debate construction, though interesting.
I feel only pro side addressed the issue of Government intervention into shutting down companies that produce carbon emissions. Defining capitalism as ill equipped to reduce global warming doesn't consider or take into account the idea that the government in most capitalistic countries have the power to shut down their own sources of capital. the concept of capitalism does not negate the influence of government over them. Both sides argue the realistic nature of change on part of the economy however.
I don't believe either side won, primarily because both sides seem unable or fail to address the possibility of a natural, unnatural disaster or a sudden shift in socioeconomic power can shift the co2 emissions in a moment.
The interpretation of the debate was unclear, was this a moral issue? economic issue? health issue? I give no points as i cannot discern what the topic is about, doubtless they both had good conduct and spelling and grammar, i put aside pro's sources because of the lack of clearness on the topic.