That was a copy of Fauxlaw's vote, which was reported and removed due to the reason I provided. He could've revoted if he altered the original, but alas he elected not to.
Argument: Pro presented a valid argument based on definitions and valid source material that demonstrates decided discrimination specifically against Asian-Americans in academia, to wit, Asians are specifically penalized SAT score negative points while other minorities receive added points to their scores. Con attempted to attack the source in all three rounds, but the R1 attack claimed "the problem has been solved," apparently by interpretation of added graphics to the article, concluding from these graphics that article writer concludes the problem has been solved. Unfortunately, the rebuttal by Con does not hold because the article, itself,. never claims that, but one or two graphics display that possible understanding, but the article makes it clear that the claim Con makes is not true, and the article conclusion clearly repeats the defense that such understanding is wrong. Points to Pro
Sources: Pro's sources clearly support the resolution. Con had no sources in any round. Points to Pro
S&G: tie
Conduct: I could say Con's attitude regasrding pro's source material was misunderstood, but that does not really justify a conduct detraction; it's just misunderstanding. Tie.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 5:0 (5 points to PRO)
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter dismissed CON's refutations using arguments that were not presented in the debate.
He says:
"but the R1 attack claimed "the problem has been solved," apparently by interpretation of added graphics to the article, concluding from these graphics that article writer concludes the problem has been solved. Unfortunately, the rebuttal by Con does not hold because the article, itself,. never claims that, but one or two graphics display that possible understanding, but the article makes it clear that the claim Con makes is not true, and the article conclusion clearly repeats the defense that such understanding is wrong."
It may be true that CON's refutation was factually incorrect. And the voter is certainly welcome to look into the sources used. However, it is not the voter's place to go into the source and do the refuting for PRO. If CON presents an argument about a source that is unchallenged by PRO, and if that argument is logically coherent, then generally speaking, the voter should not dismiss it of their own accord. The only exception would be an argument that is objectively false based on common knowledge & reason.
The voter may revote if they properly explain why CON's refutation did/didn't work according to voting guidelines.
Another note, the voter should add more detail to their allocation of source points.
To award sources points, the voter must:
(1) explain how the debaters' sources impacted the debate,
(2) directly assess the strength/utility of at least one source in particular cited in the debate, and
(3) explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall were notably superior to the other's.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 5:0 (5 points to PRO)
>Reason for Decision: See Vote Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
Argument: Pro left a sour taste in this voter's mouth by provision of the first sourced reference, which was apparently from another debate on this site; however, the link failed, and so the citation of the apparent cost of living in India also failed. Separate reference revealed that the cost of living in India is not as Pro suggests; it is virtually half of the suggested $1,000 per month. However, the argument of cost of living, regardless of what it is in India, or anywhere else [Iran is reference also used by Pro] is irrelevant because persons are unable to make a continuous living on the basis of selling organs simply because with the exception of blood, hair, or skin [all of which are human tissue - which Pro incorrectly rejects, while Con successfully argued for their inclusion as human tissue] no organ is self-replenishing, and therefore, only one of even organs which typically exist in pairs, can be sold until the person dies if that person expects to be able to continue use of the other paired organ. Therefore, the argument of economic support for an organ-selling industry does not figure as a sustainable argument. Con successfully rebutted the point, by demonstration that even the selling of self-replenishable organs [blood and hair] provides a viable market of organ selling that is beneficial to those needing organ transplant. Points to Con.
Sources: As if the sour encounter of an inaccessible source link could be ignored, Pro's sources presented unsupportable arguments relative to poverty and market liquidity because of the failed arguments as noted above, and the use of sources, such as Iran, whose economy is not exactly robust in any market, let alone organ-selling. Pro's sources are simply not reliable. Con's sources, by contrast, such as the sourcing of hair and blood offering, while not personally beneficial for sustained personal cost of living concerns by themselves, do contribute to a person's cost of living needs. Points to Con
S&G: tie
Conduct: Pro and Con had relatively equivalent conduct value until in R4, when Pro said, "Con's crux of his argument strongly supports my idea, therefore he has conceded this debate". A fair review of Con's arguments would suggest that in little regard do Con's arguments agree with Pro. Therefore, to suggest that Con has de facto conceded when Con offered no such concession, but rather continued argumentative and rebuttal language demonstrates that Con stayed active in debate in all four rounds. Point to Con.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:6 (6 points to CON)
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The allocation of the conduct point is not properly justified.
"To award conduct points, the voter must:
(1) identify specific instances of misconduct,
(2) explain how this misconduct was excessive, unfair, or in breach of the debate's rules, and
(3) compare each debater's conduct."
PRO making a rhetorical statement about CON de facto conceding is not an excessive breach in conduct.
Yeah a lot of those old sources went dead for some reason. And we may debate it still, we'll see.
Now that I've done both sides, I'm kinda curious: if I pit two clones of me against eachother, one with my PRO case and one with a more fleshed out version of my old CON case... which one of me would win?
I would've liked the opportunity to debunk that example though. Definitely seems like a big enough last minute addition to where it only seems fair for the other person to be able to respond
Also, looking back he sorta kinda used it as a new point but also used it as evidence for his already existing points... so I guess it depends on whether the judge likes brand new evidence in the final round or not
"CON's narrative is easily refuted here: if the oppression is subtle and nebulous, then violent revolution won’t even be in the playbook.
He may be arguing that people could be convinced that there is more oppression in a government than there really is, but if the government were less oppressive than one worthy of violent revolt, surely it would reform given the threats of the populace, rendering this point moot."
&
"This renders CON’s criticism completely non-topical, as the resolution specifically excludes any government that is not objectively politically oppressive. This should be pretty obvious, as it is impossible to be revolting against a politically oppressive state in which there is no political oppression. All CON does here is prove that violent revolution is unjust in a just society, which is news to nobody."
"which brings in another moral dilemma, is self-defense justified when someone is doing something but they do not know they are doing it, nor are they controlling themselves?"
Good question. According to the Responsibility-Sensitive Account, if you're being targeted by someone who is not responsible for their actions, you can only respond with a severity similar to their non-consensual acts.
For example, if you were mind-controlled and trying to stab me with a knife, I'd probably defend myself with similarly lethal force for my own and others' sakes... and that would be OK. In the context of abortion, there is really no way to "defend" from having a child against your will other than to kill it, send it to an orphanage, or throw it on the street to be picked up by whoever. All of those are questionable, but the orphanage option is at least acceptable to most people. Obviously the other two are highly immoral.
If you wanted to use the proportionality arg for abortion, you'd have to drop the Responsibility-Sensitive Account and adopt a utilitarian model. Then, you would probably do well to argue that the fetus does not have the same value as a human person (although the innate value of lost potential remains) which allows you to argue that the requirement for proportionality is therefore less strict and the killing is justified. You could do this by really stressing some of the societal consequences of banning abortion.
Of course, as with any utilitarian arg, there are big problems... but if you can defend the model, you'll be in a good spot.
"you know, the comparison to intentions and the idea of self defense gives me deja vu with MisterChris's argument in favor for violent revolution (even in potentially non violently oppressive scenarios) -- https://www.debateart.com/debates/2637-resolved-violent-revolution-is-a-just-response-to-political-oppression. It's an interesting link between different ideas. I'm curious if Pro would successfully be able raise the same idea as supporting a VR as supporting an abortion. Just fruit for thought."
PRO could make that argument, but of course, the Responsibility-Sensitive Account of Proportionality isn't an excuse to do whatever you want if you feel inconvenienced. There has to be a certain severity to the sustained transgressions to justify violent response, and I think it's fairly evident that severity is not even close to being reached in the case of abortion. There is also the explicit exception to the rule that applies when the oppressive party is not responsible for their oppression: "In contrast, someone who is addicted to pinching, call her the Addicted Pincher, and as such is much less responsible for posing a threat, may not be subjected to harms greater than pinching itself.” As the child is not responsible for its existence (which you would claim is the oppressive act), there should be no harm done to it.
Vote mod here. Generally speaking, S&G only comes in when it is excessive, which I would define as impeding on the voter's ability to grasp and weigh the statements presented.
According to voting guidelines:
"To award S/G points, the voter must:
(1) give specific examples of S/G errors,
(2) explain how these errors were excessive, and
(3) compare each debaters' S/G."
Obviously, the occasional typo does not count as "excessive"
Who knows honestly... most pro-lifers on the site don't debate (only reside in the forums) so it's hard to measure that. I do probably debate the topic more often than most though
"(Though, I think you missed out on his re-crystallization on how people can randomly determine "oppressive" based on their own definition)"
I could be penalized for this, but I considered it de-facto refuted, as I had continued with the narrative throughout the debate that people will not rush to violence unless the transgressions are truly heinous.
I'd appreciate the read. Undefeatable has definitely demonstrated he is a worthy opponent. I'd be OK with my win streak coming to an end against him, although I'd rather it not.
Honestly, this debate was very neck and neck. It mostly depends on how the judge interprets some things in the resolution... I also believe that we may have benefitted from greater character count, because some ideas you just can't refute properly in a few sentences.
Duly noted. I'll be looking onto this debate with great interest. Just so you're aware, I am pretty occupied as of late so I have made a conscious choice to limit myself to one debate at a time
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: seldiora // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded:
>Reason for Decision: "I don't buy the idea that the five people could potentially stop the trolley; that destroys pro's own argument about convenience. Pro fails to find a good grounding about consequentialism -- why are 20 people's convenience worth more than 4 person's net lives saved? -- and therefore Con wins the debate."
>Reason for Mod Action:
This vote did not meet the standards for awarding arguments points.
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.
Just letting you know in advance, votes are meant to be done based on the debate alone, without the input/influence of anyone else (whether it be the debaters post-debate or other voters)
The reason this principle exists is so that votes are not unduly influenced by outside factors. In other words, asking for PRO to give input on your vote post-debate could unduly influence your decision. If you want feedback on your vote, I'd be happy to give it, just make sure to ask for it once your vote is complete.
It's mostly to artificially inflate our vote count than anything else. I'm going to try to vote on some of the other debates if Undefeatable doesn't respond within the day again lmao
He's been working on it, told me so on Discord the other day
Ah, good rebuttal. I feel this will be a good debate
stronk
Ahhh, this is a fantastic topic.
That was a copy of Fauxlaw's vote, which was reported and removed due to the reason I provided. He could've revoted if he altered the original, but alas he elected not to.
Argument: Pro presented a valid argument based on definitions and valid source material that demonstrates decided discrimination specifically against Asian-Americans in academia, to wit, Asians are specifically penalized SAT score negative points while other minorities receive added points to their scores. Con attempted to attack the source in all three rounds, but the R1 attack claimed "the problem has been solved," apparently by interpretation of added graphics to the article, concluding from these graphics that article writer concludes the problem has been solved. Unfortunately, the rebuttal by Con does not hold because the article, itself,. never claims that, but one or two graphics display that possible understanding, but the article makes it clear that the claim Con makes is not true, and the article conclusion clearly repeats the defense that such understanding is wrong. Points to Pro
Sources: Pro's sources clearly support the resolution. Con had no sources in any round. Points to Pro
S&G: tie
Conduct: I could say Con's attitude regasrding pro's source material was misunderstood, but that does not really justify a conduct detraction; it's just misunderstanding. Tie.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 5:0 (5 points to PRO)
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab
>Reason for Mod Action:
The voter dismissed CON's refutations using arguments that were not presented in the debate.
He says:
"but the R1 attack claimed "the problem has been solved," apparently by interpretation of added graphics to the article, concluding from these graphics that article writer concludes the problem has been solved. Unfortunately, the rebuttal by Con does not hold because the article, itself,. never claims that, but one or two graphics display that possible understanding, but the article makes it clear that the claim Con makes is not true, and the article conclusion clearly repeats the defense that such understanding is wrong."
It may be true that CON's refutation was factually incorrect. And the voter is certainly welcome to look into the sources used. However, it is not the voter's place to go into the source and do the refuting for PRO. If CON presents an argument about a source that is unchallenged by PRO, and if that argument is logically coherent, then generally speaking, the voter should not dismiss it of their own accord. The only exception would be an argument that is objectively false based on common knowledge & reason.
The voter may revote if they properly explain why CON's refutation did/didn't work according to voting guidelines.
Another note, the voter should add more detail to their allocation of source points.
To award sources points, the voter must:
(1) explain how the debaters' sources impacted the debate,
(2) directly assess the strength/utility of at least one source in particular cited in the debate, and
(3) explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall were notably superior to the other's.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: Not Removed
>Points Awarded: 5:0 (5 points to PRO)
>Reason for Decision: See Vote Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
Argument: Pro left a sour taste in this voter's mouth by provision of the first sourced reference, which was apparently from another debate on this site; however, the link failed, and so the citation of the apparent cost of living in India also failed. Separate reference revealed that the cost of living in India is not as Pro suggests; it is virtually half of the suggested $1,000 per month. However, the argument of cost of living, regardless of what it is in India, or anywhere else [Iran is reference also used by Pro] is irrelevant because persons are unable to make a continuous living on the basis of selling organs simply because with the exception of blood, hair, or skin [all of which are human tissue - which Pro incorrectly rejects, while Con successfully argued for their inclusion as human tissue] no organ is self-replenishing, and therefore, only one of even organs which typically exist in pairs, can be sold until the person dies if that person expects to be able to continue use of the other paired organ. Therefore, the argument of economic support for an organ-selling industry does not figure as a sustainable argument. Con successfully rebutted the point, by demonstration that even the selling of self-replenishable organs [blood and hair] provides a viable market of organ selling that is beneficial to those needing organ transplant. Points to Con.
Sources: As if the sour encounter of an inaccessible source link could be ignored, Pro's sources presented unsupportable arguments relative to poverty and market liquidity because of the failed arguments as noted above, and the use of sources, such as Iran, whose economy is not exactly robust in any market, let alone organ-selling. Pro's sources are simply not reliable. Con's sources, by contrast, such as the sourcing of hair and blood offering, while not personally beneficial for sustained personal cost of living concerns by themselves, do contribute to a person's cost of living needs. Points to Con
S&G: tie
Conduct: Pro and Con had relatively equivalent conduct value until in R4, when Pro said, "Con's crux of his argument strongly supports my idea, therefore he has conceded this debate". A fair review of Con's arguments would suggest that in little regard do Con's arguments agree with Pro. Therefore, to suggest that Con has de facto conceded when Con offered no such concession, but rather continued argumentative and rebuttal language demonstrates that Con stayed active in debate in all four rounds. Point to Con.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 0:6 (6 points to CON)
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The allocation of the conduct point is not properly justified.
"To award conduct points, the voter must:
(1) identify specific instances of misconduct,
(2) explain how this misconduct was excessive, unfair, or in breach of the debate's rules, and
(3) compare each debater's conduct."
PRO making a rhetorical statement about CON de facto conceding is not an excessive breach in conduct.
The voter may revote if they fix this issue.
Aside from me forgetting to start the damn timer repeatedly, this was fun. Will leave a vote after I rewatch.
my eyes are burning. CON, don't bold your entire rebuttal!
Yeah a lot of those old sources went dead for some reason. And we may debate it still, we'll see.
Now that I've done both sides, I'm kinda curious: if I pit two clones of me against eachother, one with my PRO case and one with a more fleshed out version of my old CON case... which one of me would win?
Now that i've done both PRO and CON on this topic, not sure if Supa and I will debate this same topic at all. May want to change it. Up to him though
Oh well. Even if he won that point I have many layers of defense... We will see how Whiteflame judges
I would've liked the opportunity to debunk that example though. Definitely seems like a big enough last minute addition to where it only seems fair for the other person to be able to respond
Also, looking back he sorta kinda used it as a new point but also used it as evidence for his already existing points... so I guess it depends on whether the judge likes brand new evidence in the final round or not
Addressed it.
"CON's narrative is easily refuted here: if the oppression is subtle and nebulous, then violent revolution won’t even be in the playbook.
He may be arguing that people could be convinced that there is more oppression in a government than there really is, but if the government were less oppressive than one worthy of violent revolt, surely it would reform given the threats of the populace, rendering this point moot."
&
"This renders CON’s criticism completely non-topical, as the resolution specifically excludes any government that is not objectively politically oppressive. This should be pretty obvious, as it is impossible to be revolting against a politically oppressive state in which there is no political oppression. All CON does here is prove that violent revolution is unjust in a just society, which is news to nobody."
Yeah, I may or may not have a slight fetish for this topic...
"which brings in another moral dilemma, is self-defense justified when someone is doing something but they do not know they are doing it, nor are they controlling themselves?"
Good question. According to the Responsibility-Sensitive Account, if you're being targeted by someone who is not responsible for their actions, you can only respond with a severity similar to their non-consensual acts.
For example, if you were mind-controlled and trying to stab me with a knife, I'd probably defend myself with similarly lethal force for my own and others' sakes... and that would be OK. In the context of abortion, there is really no way to "defend" from having a child against your will other than to kill it, send it to an orphanage, or throw it on the street to be picked up by whoever. All of those are questionable, but the orphanage option is at least acceptable to most people. Obviously the other two are highly immoral.
If you wanted to use the proportionality arg for abortion, you'd have to drop the Responsibility-Sensitive Account and adopt a utilitarian model. Then, you would probably do well to argue that the fetus does not have the same value as a human person (although the innate value of lost potential remains) which allows you to argue that the requirement for proportionality is therefore less strict and the killing is justified. You could do this by really stressing some of the societal consequences of banning abortion.
Of course, as with any utilitarian arg, there are big problems... but if you can defend the model, you'll be in a good spot.
"you know, the comparison to intentions and the idea of self defense gives me deja vu with MisterChris's argument in favor for violent revolution (even in potentially non violently oppressive scenarios) -- https://www.debateart.com/debates/2637-resolved-violent-revolution-is-a-just-response-to-political-oppression. It's an interesting link between different ideas. I'm curious if Pro would successfully be able raise the same idea as supporting a VR as supporting an abortion. Just fruit for thought."
PRO could make that argument, but of course, the Responsibility-Sensitive Account of Proportionality isn't an excuse to do whatever you want if you feel inconvenienced. There has to be a certain severity to the sustained transgressions to justify violent response, and I think it's fairly evident that severity is not even close to being reached in the case of abortion. There is also the explicit exception to the rule that applies when the oppressive party is not responsible for their oppression: "In contrast, someone who is addicted to pinching, call her the Addicted Pincher, and as such is much less responsible for posing a threat, may not be subjected to harms greater than pinching itself.” As the child is not responsible for its existence (which you would claim is the oppressive act), there should be no harm done to it.
Vote mod here. Generally speaking, S&G only comes in when it is excessive, which I would define as impeding on the voter's ability to grasp and weigh the statements presented.
According to voting guidelines:
"To award S/G points, the voter must:
(1) give specific examples of S/G errors,
(2) explain how these errors were excessive, and
(3) compare each debaters' S/G."
Obviously, the occasional typo does not count as "excessive"
LOL. Thinking back, the alpha pro lifer may have been semperfortis. He quit the site a while back though
strong opener. Look forward to see how this debate pans out
Who knows honestly... most pro-lifers on the site don't debate (only reside in the forums) so it's hard to measure that. I do probably debate the topic more often than most though
"(Though, I think you missed out on his re-crystallization on how people can randomly determine "oppressive" based on their own definition)"
I could be penalized for this, but I considered it de-facto refuted, as I had continued with the narrative throughout the debate that people will not rush to violence unless the transgressions are truly heinous.
I'd appreciate the read. Undefeatable has definitely demonstrated he is a worthy opponent. I'd be OK with my win streak coming to an end against him, although I'd rather it not.
Honestly, this debate was very neck and neck. It mostly depends on how the judge interprets some things in the resolution... I also believe that we may have benefitted from greater character count, because some ideas you just can't refute properly in a few sentences.
thanks for the engaging debate, you did very well
REPOST FOR VOTERS:
"Undefeatable and I have agreed privately via PM's to structure the debate rounds accordingly:
R1 - Constructives
R2 - Rebuttal of opponent's constructive
R3 - Defense of cases
R4 - Rebuttal of opponent's defense and final summary"
Duly noted. I'll be looking onto this debate with great interest. Just so you're aware, I am pretty occupied as of late so I have made a conscious choice to limit myself to one debate at a time
sorry couldnt get around to it, but Safalcon's vote looked pretty good
ping me tomorrow, I may be able to squeeze out a vote on this.
oh shit. You should've bumped again, this shouldn't have been a tie.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: seldiora // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded:
>Reason for Decision: "I don't buy the idea that the five people could potentially stop the trolley; that destroys pro's own argument about convenience. Pro fails to find a good grounding about consequentialism -- why are 20 people's convenience worth more than 4 person's net lives saved? -- and therefore Con wins the debate."
>Reason for Mod Action:
This vote did not meet the standards for awarding arguments points.
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.
**************************************************
Just letting you know in advance, votes are meant to be done based on the debate alone, without the input/influence of anyone else (whether it be the debaters post-debate or other voters)
The reason this principle exists is so that votes are not unduly influenced by outside factors. In other words, asking for PRO to give input on your vote post-debate could unduly influence your decision. If you want feedback on your vote, I'd be happy to give it, just make sure to ask for it once your vote is complete.
lolol. Mall is getting kinky on us
BDSM
there is a way to win with this resolution, but I will not disclose it to see what happens.
You have a very quick turnaround. Don't expect a response from me for a while, but I'll try to keep it from being so last minute..
It's mostly to artificially inflate our vote count than anything else. I'm going to try to vote on some of the other debates if Undefeatable doesn't respond within the day again lmao
Ah, but remember, even the best arguments can falter. It's less about the tool and more about the mechanic
I genuinely don't think there is a permanent solution to racism, if we are ignoring the wiping out of humanity.
I think he may have been inspired by my "Everyone is at least a little racist" arg... But I don't think that carries over very well to this topic.
good to see you starting to be more cautious about your resolutions and win conditions
https://imgur.com/t87SbLe
NOTE TO VOTERS:
Undefeatable and I have agreed privately via PM's to structure the debate rounds accordingly:
R1 - Constructives
R2 - Rebuttal of opponent's constructive
R3 - Defense of cases
R4 - Rebuttal of opponent's defense
No problem!
why do I even bother?