Cheating? Not at all. If he tries to use the same argument and someone competent accepts, he will be forced to defend that argument. That will test his mettle all the same
He is my pick too. FAR better than Kendrick. The absolute GOAT. Problem is, I'm not sure if Seldiora is trying to cut off who we can debate with by when they began their careers or not.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: seldiora // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:5; 5 points to CON.
>Reason for Decision: I'm not seeing "commercialized" anywhere in pro's argument. Con was the only one who used sources.
>Reason for Mod Action:
This vote was two sentences. In other words, WAY too vague.
This can be avoided in future by just commenting on the core contention (and the main counterpoint or the lack thereof), listing a single source you found important (if voting sources), saying what conduct violation distracted you (if voting conduct)... You need not write a thesis but some minimal level of detail is required to verify knowledge of what you're grading.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: TNBinc // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:3; 3 points to CON.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action: This debate is deemed unmoderated.
You're not bad at all. I think if you continue to debate and hone your debate style you would be quite good, honestly. Plus, you concede instead of forfeiting, which I always respect.
If I were you, I would start using the grammar tools to organize my arguments. You can take a look at our debate together to see how it helps. I would also give observations before every round. I leveraged them to my advantage in our debate as well.
Lastly, make sure you do not drop any arguments. That's something that hurt you when we debated.
Plus, you are correct. I really just let that infrastructure point float in the air and snatched it up again at the last second of R3. I needed to hit that home more.
Thanks for the vote! Admittedly, if I were to redo the constructive, I would not include the"Christian values" thing or the Marxism point. I would likely just really hammer my evidence about the "3 smart decisions anyone can do."
That is an astute observation, I had completely forgotten about that section. And considering a reparations act would more than likely be challenged at the Supreme Court, unless the judges are delusional, that should strike it down (unfortunately, considering the way rulings have been recently, delusion is more likely than it should be).
I understand your motive, just remember that if it can be taken the wrong way, it probably will. Certain users (cough cough, a certain madman, cough cough) would almost certainly have a cow if they were called out. Fauxlaw is just a very good sport. Basically just tread carefully and make sure you don't cross that personal attack line and you'll be a-okay.
Do you mean outside material as anything referenced that does not have its origin within the original debate in question? Technical voters would almost definitely exclude it during their judgement, so you are right to warn PRO of it.
Anyway, I'm glad you and seldiora had a good debate. I just caution seldiora against making debates such as these in the future. Certain users (cough cough, a certain madman, cough cough) would almost certainly have a cow in your place, so I commend your conduct. I may leave a vote so that there is some closure on the matter
Hi! You're not in trouble, as fauxlaw seems to have no qualms about it, but I just wanted to inform you that call-out debates like this are generally discouraged as they teeter very close to the line of personal attack. (In fact, if fauxlaw took this in ill taste and wanted to have this removed we probably would.)
Here is an excerpt from the Moderation Extended Policies and Interpretations:
"Debates may not be deleted, barring certain exceptions
Exceptions to PA.A2.SB.SbB1.PI are limited to:
Cases in which both debaters consent to a debate’s deletion
Cases in which the debate, either in its text or title, contains personal attacks against another user
Cases in which the debate constitutes spam or advertising
Cases in which the debate, either in its text or title, contains doxxing, PM-exposing, or seriously threatening content
Cases in which the debate was created by an account impersonating DART staff
Cases in which the debate was created by a multi-account of a user banned at the time of the debate’s creation"
Please remember this when making debates in the future to avoid moderation conflict. Thank you!
It is both, actually. He means to argue we do not consider it "murder" when the chicken fetus is in the egg, but we do consider it "murder" when it is finally hatched. It's not the greatest analogy but it works
Thanks for the feedback, as vector said. Regarding the quote: “PRO counters that if life begins at birth, then all other points are moot because it would mean we are currently murdering hundreds of thousands of people yearly, and that outweighs all other impacts.”
It should actually be:
“CON counters that if life begins at birth, then all other points are moot because it would mean we are currently murdering hundreds of thousands of people yearly, and that outweighs all other impacts.”
Thanks for voting on our debate! However, it will be removed until you add some more detail to it. We do this to ensure that voting remains high quality and fair.
Here is a quick guide for voting:
"To award argument points, the voter must:
(1) survey the main argument and counterargument in the debate,
(2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and
(3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision."
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 5:1; 5 points to PRO.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action: This vote was borderline. Borderline votes are automatically ruled as sufficient.
While the reasoning for the sources point was not thorough enough, the conduct and arguments points were allocated fairly enough to satisfy a borderline rating.
It could have strengthened that point substantially. Although I could've simply countered that 42.3 million abortions per year outweighs the "Unsafe Abortions" point entirely, the stat could have earned you a victory over my point about women being deterred from abortion by the law. Although I think using those stats to argue that women have the same amount of abortions either way ignores major cultural factors. Typically the countries that have more restrictions are poorer and more religious, and society looks down upon women who have sex outside of marriage FAR more. The result is that women who have had sex outside of wedlock are far more compelled to have an abortion, which overrides the negating effect of the law. So while it is true that it makes up the difference for 2nd or 3rd world countries, if we made abortion illegal in the US, for example, I doubt women would have abortions at the same rate as they do now. Overall there's some very interesting implications from that stat
I think that bringing up women's rights might've helped depending on the judge. A constitutional battle can be a good way to win some libertarians over. You can say "you may not agree with it, but it is their constitutional freedom" and that could potentially be convincing. For people like me, the best angle is to give me some really solid scientific facts that negate life beginning at conception.
As for the 90% stat, my interpretation is that it was global. They wouldn't have worded it like they did otherwise, in my opinion. I could be wrong. Either way, I think the key word here is "estimated." It's not exact and it's not meant to be. You say there was no way to attain data from other countries, yet you also cited that 45% stat... So if that is the case I suppose we are both guilty.
As for the 75% saying "no reason," I don't think it is common practice to remove that number and then inflate the percentages like that. I might be wrong, but I think there are genuinely a lot of women who get an abortion for none of the reasons that they listed. Simply: they did not want a child. It's not like that was the only poll there either, it just happened to be the one I cited. Regardless, 7%... 1.27%... both small numbers with very little true difference in terms of the debate.
Oromagi, Ragnar, Whiteflame, Jeff_Goldblum, Virtuoso, blamonkey... there's a lot of good debaters that I personally take tips from. I usually learn the most when they hand my ass to me in a debate
I can already see you starting to alter your debate strategy and structure based on our previous debate, you are learning extremely quickly. I may leave a vote if I get the time
I wouldn't punish the women. I'd abolish it and leave it at that. Similar to how we did not punish every Confederate soldier after the end of the Civil War. History looks back at them in disgust, and that is enough for me.
I made a typo in my R1. I mixed up the "PRO" and "CON" label under the LIFE AT CONCEPTION point.
Here is what it SHOULD say:
"LIFE AT CONCEPTION
PRO argues that life beginning at birth is a moot point because it is subjective and fickle.
CON counters that if life begins at birth, then all other points are moot because it would mean we are currently murdering hundreds of thousands of people yearly, and that outweighs all other impacts."
He definitely is within the top 2-3. Definitely better than I am (although admittedly he debated me when I was new to the site and really just developing my debate style and skill. The end result would be the same but I like to think it would be more of a challenge for him now). It would be fun to see a full-blown debate tournament where (try) to see who truly is the best debater on the site.
I was curious how you were going to provide a counter-example, but the more I think about it China is a pretty great one. It was a clever argument, good job
Cheating? Not at all. If he tries to use the same argument and someone competent accepts, he will be forced to defend that argument. That will test his mettle all the same
Being able to debate both sides is an admirable skill.
Being able to debate both sides is an admirable skill.
He is my pick too. FAR better than Kendrick. The absolute GOAT. Problem is, I'm not sure if Seldiora is trying to cut off who we can debate with by when they began their careers or not.
You should make it "since 2000." Lamar started at about 2004
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: seldiora // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:5; 5 points to CON.
>Reason for Decision: I'm not seeing "commercialized" anywhere in pro's argument. Con was the only one who used sources.
>Reason for Mod Action:
This vote was two sentences. In other words, WAY too vague.
This can be avoided in future by just commenting on the core contention (and the main counterpoint or the lack thereof), listing a single source you found important (if voting sources), saying what conduct violation distracted you (if voting conduct)... You need not write a thesis but some minimal level of detail is required to verify knowledge of what you're grading.
Do you mean that school uniforms should be federal/international law? Is this just in the US, or worldwide?
No clue
Lol I like this one
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: TNBinc // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:3; 3 points to CON.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action: This debate is deemed unmoderated.
May leave a vote on this one. Problem is 5 rounds is a lot to wade through. But heck, I like gun topics
Good luck
This debate is fine. If someone else leaked your resume it would be doxxing, but since you willingly shared it I see no issue.
You're not bad at all. I think if you continue to debate and hone your debate style you would be quite good, honestly. Plus, you concede instead of forfeiting, which I always respect.
If I were you, I would start using the grammar tools to organize my arguments. You can take a look at our debate together to see how it helps. I would also give observations before every round. I leveraged them to my advantage in our debate as well.
Lastly, make sure you do not drop any arguments. That's something that hurt you when we debated.
Plus, you are correct. I really just let that infrastructure point float in the air and snatched it up again at the last second of R3. I needed to hit that home more.
Thanks for the vote! Admittedly, if I were to redo the constructive, I would not include the"Christian values" thing or the Marxism point. I would likely just really hammer my evidence about the "3 smart decisions anyone can do."
That is an astute observation, I had completely forgotten about that section. And considering a reparations act would more than likely be challenged at the Supreme Court, unless the judges are delusional, that should strike it down (unfortunately, considering the way rulings have been recently, delusion is more likely than it should be).
It is very appreciated
Any votes on this would be appreciated, despite the forfeit from RM
just used google translate lol. What would be the correct symbols for "concession"/"surrender"?
I understand your motive, just remember that if it can be taken the wrong way, it probably will. Certain users (cough cough, a certain madman, cough cough) would almost certainly have a cow if they were called out. Fauxlaw is just a very good sport. Basically just tread carefully and make sure you don't cross that personal attack line and you'll be a-okay.
Do you mean outside material as anything referenced that does not have its origin within the original debate in question? Technical voters would almost definitely exclude it during their judgement, so you are right to warn PRO of it.
Anyway, I'm glad you and seldiora had a good debate. I just caution seldiora against making debates such as these in the future. Certain users (cough cough, a certain madman, cough cough) would almost certainly have a cow in your place, so I commend your conduct. I may leave a vote so that there is some closure on the matter
Thanks for the detailed analysis. It is very helpful and appreciated
Hi! You're not in trouble, as fauxlaw seems to have no qualms about it, but I just wanted to inform you that call-out debates like this are generally discouraged as they teeter very close to the line of personal attack. (In fact, if fauxlaw took this in ill taste and wanted to have this removed we probably would.)
Here is an excerpt from the Moderation Extended Policies and Interpretations:
"Debates may not be deleted, barring certain exceptions
Exceptions to PA.A2.SB.SbB1.PI are limited to:
Cases in which both debaters consent to a debate’s deletion
Cases in which the debate, either in its text or title, contains personal attacks against another user
Cases in which the debate constitutes spam or advertising
Cases in which the debate, either in its text or title, contains doxxing, PM-exposing, or seriously threatening content
Cases in which the debate was created by an account impersonating DART staff
Cases in which the debate was created by a multi-account of a user banned at the time of the debate’s creation"
Please remember this when making debates in the future to avoid moderation conflict. Thank you!
no problem
It is both, actually. He means to argue we do not consider it "murder" when the chicken fetus is in the egg, but we do consider it "murder" when it is finally hatched. It's not the greatest analogy but it works
Thank you for taking the time to vote
Thanks for the feedback, as vector said. Regarding the quote: “PRO counters that if life begins at birth, then all other points are moot because it would mean we are currently murdering hundreds of thousands of people yearly, and that outweighs all other impacts.”
It should actually be:
“CON counters that if life begins at birth, then all other points are moot because it would mean we are currently murdering hundreds of thousands of people yearly, and that outweighs all other impacts.”
I mixed up PRO and CON under that point :)
Thanks for voting on our debate! However, it will be removed until you add some more detail to it. We do this to ensure that voting remains high quality and fair.
Here is a quick guide for voting:
"To award argument points, the voter must:
(1) survey the main argument and counterargument in the debate,
(2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and
(3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision."
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 5:1; 5 points to PRO.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action: This vote was borderline. Borderline votes are automatically ruled as sufficient.
While the reasoning for the sources point was not thorough enough, the conduct and arguments points were allocated fairly enough to satisfy a borderline rating.
Thanks for the kind words and for looking over it for us. I'm alright with the debate being changed to rated. What about you vector?
It could have strengthened that point substantially. Although I could've simply countered that 42.3 million abortions per year outweighs the "Unsafe Abortions" point entirely, the stat could have earned you a victory over my point about women being deterred from abortion by the law. Although I think using those stats to argue that women have the same amount of abortions either way ignores major cultural factors. Typically the countries that have more restrictions are poorer and more religious, and society looks down upon women who have sex outside of marriage FAR more. The result is that women who have had sex outside of wedlock are far more compelled to have an abortion, which overrides the negating effect of the law. So while it is true that it makes up the difference for 2nd or 3rd world countries, if we made abortion illegal in the US, for example, I doubt women would have abortions at the same rate as they do now. Overall there's some very interesting implications from that stat
Anyway, just my take. Let's leave the debate as-is and let the judges decide
I think that bringing up women's rights might've helped depending on the judge. A constitutional battle can be a good way to win some libertarians over. You can say "you may not agree with it, but it is their constitutional freedom" and that could potentially be convincing. For people like me, the best angle is to give me some really solid scientific facts that negate life beginning at conception.
As for the 90% stat, my interpretation is that it was global. They wouldn't have worded it like they did otherwise, in my opinion. I could be wrong. Either way, I think the key word here is "estimated." It's not exact and it's not meant to be. You say there was no way to attain data from other countries, yet you also cited that 45% stat... So if that is the case I suppose we are both guilty.
As for the 75% saying "no reason," I don't think it is common practice to remove that number and then inflate the percentages like that. I might be wrong, but I think there are genuinely a lot of women who get an abortion for none of the reasons that they listed. Simply: they did not want a child. It's not like that was the only poll there either, it just happened to be the one I cited. Regardless, 7%... 1.27%... both small numbers with very little true difference in terms of the debate.
Yes, I agree. Overall this one of the stronger debates on the site. Too bad we didn't make it rated!
I think the debate could have used a 3rd round, just for future reference. It feels a bit unfinished, like we didn't have enough clash or something
Oromagi, Ragnar, Whiteflame, Jeff_Goldblum, Virtuoso, blamonkey... there's a lot of good debaters that I personally take tips from. I usually learn the most when they hand my ass to me in a debate
I can already see you starting to alter your debate strategy and structure based on our previous debate, you are learning extremely quickly. I may leave a vote if I get the time
I wouldn't punish the women. I'd abolish it and leave it at that. Similar to how we did not punish every Confederate soldier after the end of the Civil War. History looks back at them in disgust, and that is enough for me.
I don't think human life is a zero sum game. The policy lessens the moral dent, but it does not wash their hands of the crime.
Now, if we HAVE to have abortion legal then the policy is better than nothing. Still, it is far from optimal
Yeah no problem. It was fun, and since the debate is unrated it doesn't matter all that much regardless.
Incoherence is his main debate strategy.
I said it was clever, not foolproof.
ATTENTION VOTERS!!
I made a typo in my R1. I mixed up the "PRO" and "CON" label under the LIFE AT CONCEPTION point.
Here is what it SHOULD say:
"LIFE AT CONCEPTION
PRO argues that life beginning at birth is a moot point because it is subjective and fickle.
CON counters that if life begins at birth, then all other points are moot because it would mean we are currently murdering hundreds of thousands of people yearly, and that outweighs all other impacts."
He definitely is within the top 2-3. Definitely better than I am (although admittedly he debated me when I was new to the site and really just developing my debate style and skill. The end result would be the same but I like to think it would be more of a challenge for him now). It would be fun to see a full-blown debate tournament where (try) to see who truly is the best debater on the site.
I was curious how you were going to provide a counter-example, but the more I think about it China is a pretty great one. It was a clever argument, good job
I agree. You will do well here. Welcome to the site
Don't sweat it. You'll catch on quickly to the formal debate norms
Sometimes I read something so blatantly wrong I don't even know where to begin to refute it... this is one of those times.
looking forward to your R1