Novice_II

Savant gives six main arguments defending his position. From the first three, he comes in focusing on a clear point of agreement, that persons should not be harmed (along with a criteria for harm), a criteria for personhood where Humans are persons, and Don Marquis's account for the wrongness of killing. Frankly speaking, the 4th is basically the same thing as his 3rd argument. The rest include an argument from the wrongness of creating dependency and killing (which is intuitively the strongest when coupled with the personhood outline) and a parental obligations argument. The response from the con is far simpler focusing on self-ownership using two thought experiments from Thompson (the violinist and people seeds) and denying the personhood of the unborn with a clever cancer cell reduction on pro's account, and criteria based on the capacity for consciousness and metabolism.

(I) Personhood

While both accounts of personhood have weaknesses, pro never technically affirmed that human DNA alone was sufficient for personhood, so the initial charge con levied goes through. Clearly, human and cancer cells are not members of the homo-sapien species, however, pro does not contain a clear definition of what it would mean to be a member of the species. Nevertheless, appealing to standard biology sides with the affirmative. Con calling pro's account of personhood circular was a clear misunderstanding of the view because a human was never stated to be analytically identical to a person. This is made clear as Savant has added an "able to be harmed condition" from round one.

The transformation analogy is pro's best attack on con's notion of capacity showing that coma patients don't in fact have all the structures necessary to generate consciousness, they (at least sometimes) need some form of treatment. This captures con's account, which commits his view to the permissibility of stabbing comatose people to death apparently. Because pro actually cited a source to defend this and con appeals to the "benchmark having been passed" which misses the point, pro strongly wins this point. Con had some interesting objects to pro's account of harm, however, pro was able to take care of them by appealing to prime-facie clauses and harm/reward trade-off analysis for ultima-facie considerations

(II) Autonomy/Self-Ownership

The people seeds and violinist experiments are dealt with for being disanalogous, none of them applying to consensual sex. He then forwards the dopamine room to push the intuition that even when there is a low chance of an event occurring, we still bear responsibility for making people dependent on us when done consensually. Con just bites the bullet on the dopamine room. Con also comments that pro had not clarified his view on rape cases which is just irrelevant to the debate proposition as the consensual cases already capture the majority. He also doesn't track pro's point confusing the percentage of sex that results in pregnancy with the relevant disanalogy. Because of relevant dis-analogies presented for both cases where con fails to respond to one, and just accepts the entitlement of the other pro wins on this point as well.

I won't focus on the rest of the arguments pro gave and keep concentrating on the major ones that evolved throughout the debate. First, the capacity criteria for personhood has obvious flaws (reduction on lack of rights for comatose people). Con already seems to implicitly acknowledge that this would be a bad entailment by resisting the conclusion, but fails to demonstrate that this doesn't follow from his view. Con missed a lot of opportunities to attack pro on personhood, but pro did well in giving himself a strong groundwork with several of his other arguments. Marquis's reasoning for instance does not even require one to take the view that the unborn are persons. Either way, both major points were mostly one-sided towards the affirmative.

It's good to note that having these sorts of debates will never stop being just as important as they are interesting but pro was "never in trouble" here to use chess.com language. It's good to see people like this coming up although both sides could have made many improvements.

In this debate, the burden is shared, and con opens his case without definitions of what a debate site is. I believe this goes on to hurt him later. However he does define poor as worse than is usual, expected, or desirable; of a low or inferior standard or quality, and that is the baseline for both debaters. At a glance at the first argument, I am on the face convinced that Kialo is not in poor condition, but con only shows that debate art is not poor by the standard of website functionality in argument 2. This presents obvious reductios such as a perfectly functioning website with no users etc. and it seems clear that there should be some larger criteria involved. But con tries to close this gap with the third argument that deals with the actual activity and user base of the site. Con says that the website has a "the front-page detailing how there is “a team of community-approved moderators” and that the entire site is driven by its community." this is not compelling to me as it is an appeal to authority and does not actually prove the claim in question and common experience on the website will tell you that hardly any of the moderators are active, just to show the flaws of the implication. Regardless, we get a clear idea of con's conjunctive criteria, P∧Q, P representing quality website functionality, and Q representing an active community and user base. Modus Ponens off that for the argument.

So while pro may actually seem to have a larger burden, it is actually not the case by the end of the round. Because con did not argue for debate island, all pro needs to do is disprove that the two platforms in question are poor debate sites. He does this by first defining the pivotal term in the resolution. Because there is generally a distinction between the two concepts and the dictionaries were both standard representations of public language I would take that alone prime facie. But, con shows that by the website's own statement, it is a source for "collaborative reasoning" which seems distant to the environments associated with debate art or debate island. Now because con did not define the term in question, and does not have the opportunity to respond to pro by the one-round structure, pro wins this point with three clear distinguishing factors in conjunction with the above definitions.

Now all that is in question is that P∧Q conjunction and pro goes for the second proposition, where he shows that hardly any of the users are active, a ton of forfeited debates, and a lack of participatory activity. Now, this alone is relevant to me even without a point of comparison because con did not argue for Q well.

Arguments: The fact that "There is only a single open challenge," can show that people accept them all, or that hardly any are created. On my view, there is an underdetermination there and con does not present some sort of statistical analysis to resolve that. Appeals to the authority in question, con also points out how there are 41 ongoing debates, but this does not account for the number of forfeits like pro mentions. On the flip side, pro using debate.org as a reference does not seem to account for the time the respective platforms have existed, debateart for 4-5 years, and debate.org for 14. However, even by trajectory and proposition, it is clear that debate art is nowhere near the former. Another potential objection could be that debate.org breaks the norm of debate sites, but as a voter, I am only aware of 3 debate sites, only two of which are on the baseline. Because of this, the only points that remain without scrutiny are the lack of activity on our platform with the presidential race as evidence, the significant quantity of forfeiture on the website, and the lack of strong growth, and the arguments go to pro.

For further note, I am very disappointed in other votes on this debate.

Pro makes a simple case: in essence, he holds that all biological humans are persons and that con needs to make an argument as to who is a person under their view, the debate lies in the entitlements of these conceptions. Next, he uses 3/4 Scott Kluesendor contentions to show that none of the differences between the unborn are of moral significance. He argues from the prospective lack of objectivity to con's standard (whatever that will be) and closes with the principle of uncertainty and comparisons to unjustified killing.

Con's criteria for personhood is someone who can exist independently from any other person. A curious choice, with a lot of prospective reduction, but moving on claims that the unborn are scientifically parasites with a source that does not demonstrate this claim. Lastly, the bodily autonomy argument is used entailing that no one has a right to use a woman's body whether they are a person or not.

Pro counters by arguing the unborn is a separate entity from the mother in the moral sense because it exists as its own entity, further undercutting con's argument with a lack of comatose rights reductio. Next, pro uses the dopamine room argument to undercut the bodily autonomy case, showing that there can be instances where someone has the right to another person's body by virtue of obligations. Con drops both the "Principle of Uncertainty" and "Comparison to Unjustified Killing."

Con does not deny the personhood case anymore and seemingly drops it retreating to the bodily autonomy argument. The dopamine room is the debate as of now. Con needs to win this point having dropped or signed off on every other aspect of pro's argument. In essence, we need a symmetry breaker, Unfortunately, all of con's responses were a misunderstanding of the analogy or distinctions that are going to apply to both cases. Bones never said that people can't get medical treatment for pregnancy, just not abortions which renders the car analogy irrelevant for
instance. Con's final syllogism's first premise is in logical contradiction with their criteria for personhood so this shows they have fully conceded that the unborn are persons. All other arguments of pro's are still dropped.

This debate was not competitive at all. Pro shoots down all other poor critiques of his analogy and the contest resolves pretty clearly.

The rules state that only gay people may accept, and con provided no evidence that he was gay.

I would like to see this debate with the contender as intended. Otherwise, all points to pro for obvious reasons.

All counter arguments were technically dropped by the second round, which was a let down.

Yes, I changed my mind upon review. I apologize for taking so long to vote.
Full decision and analysis (over 3.5 Thousand words):
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/97ia4f02gbaydahjfltdl/Untitled.paper?dl=0&rlkey=r2ezb6gm3zms7h87q3ptofleq

Excerpt documenting final section:
I judge debates on the strengths and weaknesses of arguments. Pro’s moral equalization established that the unborn ought to have human rights and protections carrying the same rights as a born individual. Con does not propose any criteria, he calls it irrelevant to his case, however, if this is true, as the instigator shows, how does con establish that anyone has rights at all? He says his argument applies “the existing legal standard for granting rights to persons and examine the consequences of extending it to all the unborn,” however he does not attempt to justify the current legal standards in respect to pro’s argument, and this harms his position. It also clashes with his previous assertion: “I have no criteria for personhood.” Both propositions come in conjunction, and I am left as a voter to defer to the grounded and consistent argument, not the ontologically vacuous one.

Con has the less philosophically consistent framework, his position does not attend for this counter. Con also states that I ought to assume that all reasons for abortion are justified, ignoring pro’s moral equalization arguments. This entails that I ought to also assume that they are justified for killing born children, and the implications for this are drastic and unaccounted for. Con does not engage with this point when countered, thus I grant it to the instigator.

Next, con falls to the slavery analogy as his position entails that we ought not to ban slavery if such a ban causes any form of structural violence at all. While focusing on the absolutes of pro’s case, he forgets about the absolutes of his own syllogism, and pro exploits this mistake quite well. This is proponent from flaw (II. a), and con does not deal with this in his argumentation while pro deals with the majority of his own flaws. Con’s conception of structural violence was vague from round one, and while seemingly clarified in round three, the criterion does not do due diligence, it can seemingly be applied to any policy. It also isn’t clear is to why con’s justification for 15 weeks is sufficient because if such a policy created structural violence (Flaws II. e), even if just to a single person, con also tells me it should not be implemented, This is self defeating. I can only conclude that the syllogism that con defends is poorly constructed so long as he does not falsify his own policy as in-congruent with premises one and two.

As for pro’s syllogism(s), he is able to defend that the notion of “illegal,” always entails exceptions, and consequently, his position does not commit him to arguing that every single abortion that exists will be prohibited.

Addressing impacts, I give con the upper hand in establishing harms stemming from this policy, at least potential harm given that his data does not seem to give me a more strictly empirical analysis of the majority of them. However from pro’s sources, it is clear that the legality of abortion in part creates such a large demand and expansion of it, and I get the impression that the removal of abortion services in the public domain has a deterrent effect. There is a slight epistemic gap here as con does not prove that abortion bans do not decrease abortions (comparing undeveloped and developed countries without controlling for pregnancy rate does not demonstrate this). Thus, con convinces me that there will be both harm and structural violence that exists as a result of this policy, just not to a sufficient degree that offsets the killing of people proven to have a morally equivalent right to life to born children especially as pro counters many of the proposed impacts from the contender.

My verdict: con’s argument suffers from reductions, and is logically unstable. This is enough to shift me from voting a tie to voting for the instigator narrowly. Pro could have argued much better, saying such may even be an understatement, but his case is on balance the stronger of the two. Deductive arguments go to pro for the aforementioned reasons.

Absence of subsequent argument.

Christianm had good lines like "I'm lyrically ill, like my victims with leprosy/You could live a thousand years and still be dead to me."

Datamonkey has very compelling lines and wordplay such as "Forfeited," and "Forfeited."

Pro makes a fairly consistent case throughout, and he could have cut the characters in half and performed just as well. There is a current shortage of kidneys, there is a moral complication in the government restriction on products that save lives. Pro makes a compelling case in that we allow people to voluntarily risk their lives to provide services to others. The analogy to firefighters was strong rhetorically. I like the effect of preventing kidney donors as heroes in their interaction with society.

Con's only counter-argument is the supposed harm to poor people, a point pro appears to have wisely attempted to pre-refute. Con provides a more nuanced perspective on the argument. Pro pokes several holes in con's case. Empirically you can live just fine with a single kidney as evidenced. Pro has the upper hand in that he has established a consistent argument with allowing the transaction of services. I parse it into:

p1. If it is ethical to allow people to voluntarily engage in compensated actions with the risk potential, (namely, the military and firemen) to help others, adults selling their kidneys should be legal.
p2. It is ethical to allow people to voluntarily engage in compensated actions with the risk potential to help others (the military and fire departments should not be banned).
c. Adults selling their kidneys should be legal.

I don't get the impression that con rejects an aspect of what is essentially the debate here as he needed to provide an ethically relevant distinction between kidney selling and the military or firefighters. I will award conduct to pro based on con's round three forfeit.

Solid effort, I suggest stipulating the existence of your conception of God for the debate although the issue never came up. The case illustrates a standard of God's from which all negative emotion deviates: a result of deviating faith in the prospect of an immortal soul holds very strong refutation resistance. Pro can argue additionally that human nature entails distance from the divine nature of God based on ontology alone. That God's consciousness observes his creation that is only capable of acting upon moral reasoning, but not moral nature.

Con is some anti-Islam freak apparently. Totally bonkers. Pro makes a measured case from the definition of bad and various tenants of the Islamic religion. Con tries to posit some potential contradictions. The free will paradox was good and is something that I would personally argue, but the mercy/condemnation contradiction was self evidently much weaker. Con then goes on some anti-Islam tirade so...okay. I like con because they are funny but such rhetoric only detracts from the contender's argumentation. Pro seemingly refutes both contradictions, more anti-Islam speech from con who has dropped all of pro's arguments. The conduct wasn't great on both sides, but con was obviously significantly worse. I hope they aren't banned, but this may be the unfortunate case. The instigator wins, and a first win is always the best one.

Pro makes a sold case with the cosmological argument and the fine-tuning argument, both are solid arguments in their own right, especially with the pre-rebuttal to quantum fluctuations. Con takes a slightly unorthodox venture and creates two traps for pro's arguments each with two respective pincers. The first one posits a dilemma between the universe having an origin which would create doubt with existing theories such as the big bang, or having always existed which would lead to an infinite regression of causality. Secondly, in his trap concerning quantum randomness, he stipulates that there is no reason for quantum fluctuation in a designed universe and subsequently that pro's God requires a God of creation. Con did say "Please note Pro is yet to define God in a falsifiable manner, this means I cannot prove it wrong as it is not defined how we would prove its existence true and correct." The description states that "in monotheistic thought, God is usually viewed as the supreme being, creator, and principal object of faith. This debate will question whether such a being exists," so con is somewhat correct about this.

In round one alone the traps are fine but the issue is that the resolution is "Does God exist?" In an open question debate, the burden is shared and so while pro must prove God exists con must prove that God does not exist. The lack of a constructive places con on the defensive, not the offensive where ideally the atheist should be.

First pro suggests "define a supreme being and creator as a being capable of controlling the universe." Pro then deals with both traps by correctly pointing out that the first one is indeed an appeal to authority. Concerning the quantum, trap, christianm is right to observe that pincer one is really more of a question about phenomena and it does not refute the arguments for the existence of God. Pincer two is less clear but pro argues that the value of the gravitational constant is not required for God to exist but is evidence of the plausibility of design.

In the next round, con just drops all the traps. I thought there were still some sound counterarguments in them and as someone who followed the debate I was pretty surprised they were not followed up on. He does however reject pro's proposed definition. Goof move because con at this point of the debate has to halt pro's solid offense. He makes the case that God, defined in the resolution, is of a specific religion, which seemed like somewhat of a weak objection to me. I'll quote the next aspect of his round two:
> "Absolutely nothing necessitates a creator in our reality that cannot be applied to God itself.
> If God is the original, supreme creator, it cannot be viable to say it was created itself in an infinite regression.
> We have no reasons to believe God exists that do not themselves undermine God's supreme viability."
So the main argument here is rational madman pressing pro to propose a metaphysically relevant factor that would remove God from the infinite regression of causality. It seems like this was done in the cosmological argument previously, especially with the William Lane Craig quotes, and pro doubles down on that in response to this objection

I didn't really buy con saying the God in the description was religion-specific. Many religions capitalize God and no specific religion was mentioned. Pro argues that if God is indeed capable of creating and controlling the universe that would fit the criteria of a supreme creator. Pro is correct that co has dropped both pincers, but con is still broadly trying to counter the cosmological argument so there is still a debate here.

Here is an analysis of the final stretch, pro proves that desists can believe in a capitalized God as shows Merriam Webster's definition of God that doesn't specify a religion so he wins the sematic point with respect to religions and thus renders all the religious text portions invalid. The polytheism objection came much too late, but pro argues that the very definition of God would refute polytheism because only one entity can be supreme.

At this point...I think I have to agree that con dropped the pro's arguments, I don't really think this is disputed. The burden of proof goes both ways here and pro's arguments stand unrefuted. I think con could have attacked intelligent design much more strongly and I think the output from him was pretty low. The religious point never really stood a chance so pro takes the win.

Analyzing the line of arguments pro makes a case from lab-grown meat, short-run availability, and occupation. Lab-grown meat is obviously the strongest argument and occupation is the weakest one, which pro drops subsequently.

Con does not dispute that people deserve to eat lab-grown meat. The implicit concession seemingly goes down from here as con argues that because the resolution says "on balance," it does not matter, this is not explained with respect to how or why. Con makes the obvious gestures toward the irrelevance of aspects of pro's case. The resolution doesn't entail that meat will be banned or that people can't use/eat meat. Just whether or not they deserve it. lastly, con builds a case by drawing a comparison between humans and animals appealing to a seeming lack of relevant moral distinction.

Pro doubles down on con's effective concession of lab-grown meat. Pro has won the debate as of now. All people deserve to eat cultured meat therefore all people deserve to eat meat. Everything else becomes irrelevant frankly.

For some other notes:
Con claims that plants are secretly not alive (I think you need to go back to biology class for that one) and repeats more claims about human and animal parallels and brings up more immaterial statistics about companies that sell lab-grown meat. The fact that not everyone can eat lab meat is obviously irrelevant to the argument that everyone deserves to eat it, which is the resolution made by the contender.

Con quotes pro saying "what people deserve to do has no direct correlation to what they do," agrees to this statement, then subsequently goes to cite reasons in respect to traveling as to why people don't deserve to eat cell-cultured meat, essentially contradicting what they just agreed to? Regardless if con agrees to this then there is nothing in the on-balance specification that would preclude cultured meat.

Con repeats the statement that awkwardly clashes with 1st grade level science: plants aren't alive, and contradicts himself again stating:
> "I gave several sources and reasons to believe that plants are not alive nor conscious[1&2]. Yes, you can tell if a plant is dead or alive"
Con says plants aren't alive and then says, in the same sentence, that you can tell if a plant is alive so con says plants are...and are not alive in the same sentence?

Pro wins hand down, arguably Intelligence_06 won the debate in the second round. Good job to both debaters. The contender contradicting their own statements multiple times only ended up tilting the debate more into pro's side.