Total votes: 106
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tCv13jOLlGAQZMd-wrOh9sx1TH6R7DWdswtbTTEtccw/edit?usp=sharing
This was a good debate, although long and convoluted. I hope this RFD made sense. If not, I can clarify.
Not really much to unpack here.
Full forfeiture on the PRO side.
Concession, although there were some routes PRO could have taken to combat CON's lousy semantic tactics.
Full forfeit
The forfeit was full
Concess of the ion
CON gets the point for showing up to the battle, despite not presenting an argument.
PRO's opening argument is that in high stress/high stakes situations, police officers being permitted to use lethal force when they feel necessary allows them to better protect themselves and their communities. For ex: "if there is a shooting that breaks out on the streets. The police should be allowed to use lethal force due to the need for survival."
CON counters with the stock racism argument: that entrusting police with the authority to kill allows certain officers to make these decisions discriminately, exacerbating systemic racism and killing black people disproportionally.
PRO argues that this only represents a small portion of the officers that can be weeded out through reform, regulation, and training; PRO also outweighs on the basis that many more lives will be saved in a PRO world than taken.
CON throws a bunch of stats at us in his last round that could have swung the pendulum his way, but they aren't sourced and they're all new arguments that PRO didn't have the opportunity to respond to.
PRO ultimately takes this one, albeit this debate warrants a lot more detail than what was given by either side.
PRO says during the time one is a student, single sex schools help children focus on learning (he showed some stats on this but doesn't cite them).
CON argues that while this is true, the harms this causes later on in life outweigh. However, the resolution works against CON here... We're talking about the immediate impact on students, and CON's impacts happen when the student is no longer a student.
It especially doesn't help that PRO comes with the refutation that peer pressure to perform also harms the student socially in a CON world... Under a different resolution CON could win with this argument, but in this particular debate PRO takes the cake.
Normally this debate is a bit clear cut for the PRO side (there is a good CON case to make but most are not familiar with it), however not this time.
PRO starts with the benefit of raw calculative power... This is a good springboard to get into some grand impacts, but PRO doesn't deliver on them. All I'm getting is the warrants- no impacts.
On the other hand, CON starts out with the impact of job loss and later adds the impact of accidents due to programming error. PRO tries to deflect the first impact but doesn't contend with his warrant that jobs would overall decrease, instead focusing on the fact that a few would remain.
With CON dominating on the impact side of things this debate is sealed in his favor.
PRO? More like... PROmptly conceded!
FFFFFF
FFFFFF
FFFFFF
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMspqVbfQ1I
Both debaters have agreed to the definition of a "Flat Earth"
"The flat Earth model is an archaic conception of Earth's shape as a plane or disk."
PRO's case relies solely on a kritik on perception, that as the universe sees it we are living on a plane. Problem is, they've never challenged the definition above... CON of course challenges that we're talking literal geography. I'm buying this because if we're talking about the physical shape of the Earth as a disk as seen in archaic models, it's a given we're referring to literal geography. I'm also missing a reason from PRO as to why we would prefer the perception of empty abstract realms over the perception of physical actors, he only implies that we should.
Even if that weren't the case, the claim that the Earth specifically looks like a flat plane relative to the rest of the universe has a pretty high BoP that I don't think PRO even approaches fulfilling with their vague syllogism.
On the other hand, CON gives us some things to work with in his R1, including arguments about ships going over the horizon and NASA photographic evidence, that are intuitive and uncontested by PRO.
Args to CON.
Welp....................................................................................
I'm rating these rather arbitrarily out of 10 based on my personal preferences and will tally up the points to decide the winner. Soooooo if we're good with that I'll just proceed!
R1:
Supa-
ReZero- 7/10 (OK song, great visuals with some metaphorical meaning)
SAO- 9/10 (Fantastic song, but the visual downgrade from ReZero keeps it from being a 10/10)
Fire Force- 8/10 (Better song than ReZero but not as good as SAO with visuals on par with ReZero. The fight scenes make me want to see this anime.)
Whiteflame-
Cowboy Bebop- 8/10 (Such a cool vibe with the olde style music and visuals. Unusual for anime)
Bleach- 9/10 (Again a really cool vibe and I love the grungy music. Bleach has a special place in my heart)
Eizouken- 6/10 (Undeniably creative but not my kinda thing)
R2:
Supa-
Mob Psycho- 10/10 (Goddamn, this made me add Mob Psycho to my "must watch" list. Great song and visuals are hype. Like one commenter said: "This is basically crack for your eyes.")
SAO Aliciwhateverization- 9/10 (Music has clear influences from the metal genre while not fully diving into it, visuals are great but not as unique as Mob Psycho)
Fate/Zero- 7/10 (Music is eh for me but visuals of course are a highlight in anything Fate/Zero related)
Whiteflame-
Demon Slayer- 9/10 (Visuals are slow to begin with but the fight scenes near the end are godly with the rock influenced music.)
FMA:B- 8/10 (Visuals aren't as impressive but a highlight here is actually the lyrics. I liked this song a lot)
Tengen Toppa Woppa Something or another - 6/10 (Solid but it's one that doesn't stand out from the rest for me)
R3:
Supa-
My Hero - 6/10 (OK music and the visual style is cool but again doesn't really stand out for me)
Steins Gate- 7/10 (This is like the ReZero one for me, I really like the visual style and creativity but the music is just OK)
Kakait Kitan or however it's spelled - 7/10 (I will admit this really got me interested in the anime but the visual editing isn't really on par with some of the other selections here)
Whiteflame-
The Wolf Thing - 10/10 (Rating this as a perfect 10 for sheer creativity. Haven't seen this style of animation in an anime before and I loved the mini storyline of it turning from night to day and the wolf guy changing personalities along with it, which I imagine symbolically plays off of something in the show.)
Dorohedroioio - 9/10 (Since when was cooking so hype?)
Inner Universe - 10/10 (Fascinating all around. Music had a crazy cool vibe with the production effects and visuals were unique af)
R4:
Supa-
AoT - 9/10 (Visually fantastic)
Naruto Shippuden - 10/10 (Ugh... Sorry I know I'm biased but the scene with Naruto chasing after Sasuke as he grows older and more powerful gives me chills.)
Hikaru Nara - 6/10 (Cool visuals but not at the same caliber as the others in my view)
Whiteflame-
Code Geass - 7/10 (Solid all around just not extremely noteworthy)
Anohananananananana - 7/10 (This may be more impactful if you've seen the anime and know whatever these characters have been through, and it's clear there is metaphorical meaning in a lot of these visuals. Still, for me it falls in the middle of the pack)
Hack//////////////////////////////Sign - 6/10 (Nice retro vibe but another middle of the pack kinda deal.)
TOTALS:
Supa - 95
Whiteflame - 95
HOLY.... I SWEAR THIS WASN'T ON PURPOSE. THIS WAS A TIE ON PURE COINCIDENCE. I CHECKED THE NUMBERS TWICE.
Good job to both parties. Great selections all around.
enlightening
Framework:
I'm simply judging this as a cost-benefit debate. For PRO to win, the inherent cost necessary to implement this policy must be outweighed by the benefits. For CON to win, he must demonstrate that the cost is at least equal to or outweighs the benefits.
PRO Args:
1. Academic Benefit
This point is pretty straightforward: a correlation between video games and enhanced learning has been established. To what extent video games help learning is unknown, but it is certainly measurable in some capacity.
CON essentially cross-applies his 1st point to address this, saying that if the same educational benefit can be accomplished through cheaper means, we should prefer his case. Further, he argues that PRO's plan backfires because a fun game system would cause students to work less on homework and assignments. He also sorta kinda cross applies his competition point, saying most students will care about completion and racking up points rather than actually learning.
Regarding CON's point on reduced time management, PRO actually turns the source against him saying the study found no evidence of reduced achievement among habitual gamers, and in fact found the opposite effect. Addressing the completion thing, PRO points out that regardless of whether students cared about learning, they learned more effectively with video games. If it works, who cares?
In response CON basically drops his args and concedes that video games have benefits. Still, he argues, these benefits do not outweigh the costs.
2. Pre-Rebuttal
Dropped by both sides.
CON Args:
1. Unnecessary
CON attacks the arg of making learning more fun, saying there is no need to do so because
a. learning is already fun (I don't really like this point, this largely depends on preferences and personality)
b. even if it isn't, video games in this instance wouldn't help because they'd simply be the same boring material repackaged into a different format. Kids would see video games as boring because of their new status in the curriculum.
PRO largely drops this point in R2 except for CON's point on students expecting too much from games (which frankly doesn't hurt PRO much... His point is less about video games making things fun and more about it enhancing learning. While he does add on the point of learning being enhanced because it is fun in R2, the reason WHY it is enhanced matters little when we know for sure that it IS enhanced. Further, there really is no impact to CON's point here. Why do we care if students expect more? What's the impact?)
2. Problems
a. CON argues that competition between students would drive students to farm points instead of actually learn (this point can be turned rather easily- incentivizing students to learn with points and competition is exactly what makes them effective learning tools. We'll see if PRO does this though)
PRO counters that there is no evidence this would be done to the point it becomes counter-productive (which is true but I was hoping for a more blistering response from PRO).
b. CON gives his most potent points: this costs money. You need to provide devices and games for all students at a high cost for an unknown amount of educational benefit compared to other, cheaper means.
PRO says that this would be paid for by the state government, not the schools, which frankly I don't buy. Passing a law doesn't mean you are the one that pays for it necessarily, we can't really assume who is paying for this even with PRO's specification in the description. Even if we could, I'm not sure it harms CON's impact much.
3. Social Skills
I am not weighing this point as it was introduced last round with no warning. This also results in PRO being awarded conduct, as new arguments in last rounds are slimy and unfair.
RFD:
So this really comes down to: did PRO demonstrate that the educational benefit outweighs the cost?
And the answer is really no. While both PRO and CON end up conceding that there are educational benefits to video games, no one actually quantifies how much benefit there would be, and PRO never really challenges CON's point that the same benefit can be achieved through cheaper means. Regarding PRO's deflection that this would be paid for by big daddy state government, I was never given a good reason to assume that. Implementation of a new law =/= paying out of pocket necessarily, and even if it did, how exactly does this harm CON's arg? There is not an endless money pit for governments to use, and if a method is inefficient and wastes money, is that not a bad thing?
So ultimately, while I'm buying there is a benefit, it's not clear to me that that benefit outweighs the cost. This inherently favors the CON position under the framework.
Args to CON.
Concession from CON.
I will note CON, there are plenty of good args for the CON position so it's not unwinnable. Undefeatable's feedback includes some good ones
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1muCQYuNeU9LA6PsVy718oPKeb-NPTedNeZli5o2ROWw/edit?usp=sharing
Good debate bois. Nicely done.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nI2dj8PYgMlyZz7w29IA1_GvMOODv_PHznT0AfwgA1k/edit?usp=sharing
Good debate. This was close
Full forfeiture. CON overkilled it
[Verse 1]
Who can say where the road goes
Where the day flows, only time
And who can say if your love grows
As your heart chose, only time
[Interlude]
[Verse 2]
Who can say why your heart sighs
As your love flies, only time
And who can say why your heart cries
When your love lies, only time
[Interlude]
[Verse 3]
Who can say when the roads meet
That love might be in your heart
And who can say when the day sleeps
If the night keeps all your heart
Night keeps all your heart
[Interlude]
[Verse 4]
Who can say if your love grows
As your heart chose, only time
And who can say where the road goes
Where the day flows, only time
[Outro]
Who knows? Only time
Who knows? Only time
An unfortunate FF from PRO
Full RFD: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qvXfL6NQMxkU8e1zn8FqEU7nbE3sfrxASIz4XDVD1kE/edit?usp=sharing
Good debate!
Soooooooooo....
This debate is what Ragnar would call a "foregone conclusion." It doesn't help that all PRO did was troll with their arguments (although it would make an interesting Biblical fanfic, I don't think Jesus pounded anyone "like a pound cake"), hence the conduct point assignment.
On the other hand, CON demonstrated some tangible societal harms with inbreeding... and while his arguments were lackluster at best, that's better than whatever PRO just spat out.
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
Concession.
PRO went bye bye
agreeeeeeeeeeeeeed tieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Concession
Con cess ion
tiefrof lluf
CON did a great job taking on PRO's case, however, they didn't do as well backing up their own. So what we are left with is two sides with very little offense, one with a very tiny amount of offense on safety and academic excellence, and the other with an offense on cost and freedom, as well as religious discrimination. While CON certainly was unable to prove that uniforms are a net harm, PRO certainly did not prove that they were a net benefit. Given that the BoP is shared in the description, if there was ever a time to tie a vote, it would be now... however, that is not allowed unfortunately. Given that CON has established there is an inherent cost in establishing such a policy (someone has to pay. If not the families, the government/schools), and PRO has not proven that the benefits outweigh those costs, I'm giving it to CON by a thin margin.
Full RFD:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1usIxdra3-FCjJ6evX6XJM9ltYQ3B1Hl19e_Q2uAW4QY/edit#
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
Interpreting the BoP:
Under the description, CON quantifies that PRO must accomplish 2 things:
1. Provide a solution to racism, even if that solution may not be achievable
2. Prove that it is the best method.
RFD:
I am awarding CON arguments. Not so much because he was making good arguments, but because PRO was making bad ones.
Simple belief in God somehow translating to a fix for racism is pretty tough to prove, especially given that most Pro-Slavery arguments were originally made based on the Bible, something which CON alludes to here:
"I guess by the flip side, a theist can't be a racist so called. Not even the theist that believes in God that made a group to be inferior to a superior group,is that so?"
Aside from the whole slavery and imperialism thing, what makes this even worse is that PRO doesn't just have to prove it is a viable solution, but that it is the best, and works on all people. As a voter I can't really buy PRO's argument because he has set up for himself an insurmountable BoP which he doesn't attempt to engage with other than repeat the "God knows best" spiel. How is something the best solution if it forces us to convert people to a religion? Didn't CON already point out that many people are "not racist" but also non-religious? Shouldn't the answer be all-encompassing?
I'm also not seeing how PRO went from "God exists" to "everything in the Bible is true." There are hundreds of religions that believe in creation ex nihilo by a God, how are we to assume it is the Christian God?
There are just so many logical problems with PRO's case I can't accept it.
Concession
PRO did not actually waive, thus failing to fulfill his pre-determined win condition.
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
Forfeit. Too bad
Concession
FF. Too bad considering PRO's argument was quite beatable
Concession on the part of PRO... onward goes the challenger!
If any party wants me to give feedback, just let me know.
Concession. CON had solid arguments, despite the forfeits
ffffffffffffffffffff
I got to keep this one on the shorter side, but I think both sides will appreciate the vote instead of the inevitable no-vote tie.
Interpeting the resolution: this one is weird, as any tied point can be given to CON.
1. Mobility/Efficiency:
CON opens up with a decent case that cul de sacs are capable of being efficient currently, although notably many of his sources pertained to suburban/lower density housing, whereas the resolution specifies "city planning." PRO counters that cul-de-sacs in present cities are highly inefficient in dealing with traffic. CON points out that we are talking about capability here, not what is in current cities (I will note though, in terms of capability he hasn't demonstrated that traffic flows well in cul de sacs. Just that in terms of housing density, things look good.)
This point seems at a stalemate, and then CON switches his argument to being "they are equally good." PRO says "they aren't" without really changing their tune other then to argue that city suburbs are not the city proper, which is fair, but technically city proper can include suburbs. Overall, this point is a tie for me. It defaults to CON, then, because he must only show that there is not a notable difference in quality between the two.
2. Social Cohesion/Youth Suicides:
I approached this argument from a place of skepticism. While I am sure there is a correlation somewhere in there, there are so many factors contributing to suicide rates that I'm not weighing this point as much as Mobility/Efficiency. That said, there is a little weight there, and what little there is goes to CON.
3. Crime
This was a pretty good point... in theory. PRO replies that crime is irrelevant when it comes to the development of a city. I don't buy it. I think city planners should keep crime in mind when developing cities. This is dropped entirely, but PRO weakens their own point later by giving a source that undermines their argument that cul-de-sacs directly lower crime. Additionally, considering how many factors are involved in crime rates, I'm not giving a terrible amount of weight here, but I'm still calling it in CON's favor...
Conclusion:
I'd say overall I've been convinced that both have their purposes in city planning, and that one is not terribly better than the other. This favors the CON position. It feels like PRO didn't put all that much effort into this one, which is a shame because CON's case was totally beatable.
PRO and CON both end up agreeing that there is not enough info to conclude whether deterrence is a factor,
so both sides end up dropping that argument for justice instead. PRO also introduces an argument on cost, and it goes unrefuted.
However, as a judge I weigh justice over economic benefit... so while it is a factor, I'm mostly weighing on who won that justice point. And that is very unclear...
CON says: "To value cost over justice is awful. Any debater who puts cost over justice needs to lose there."
PRO replies: "Justice is not revenge. We don't punish rape with rape, arson with arson, why murder with murder?"
CON finishes: "Murder and execution aren't the same, one has jurors and due process, one is pure evil."
While CON might be right that murder and execution aren't the same, I don't think he establishes why exactly an execution is more just than, say, a life sentence in prison.
With a lack of offense on both sides, I'm leaving this one a tie.
This was pretty clearcut.
We never see a proper refutation of Grice's Razor from PRO.
PRO's attempted refutation with the difference between "rap" and "rape" not only doesn't refute the core idea of addressing what is meant, not said, but it also ignores the fact there is literally no such thing as a "Kalam Cosmetological Argument" whereas there IS rap and also rape.
CON didn't even have to point it out. It was pretty obvious why such a refutation didn't apply, at least from my standpoint. From there, PRO just tried to use red herrings to cop out.