Unfortunately, you seem either unwilling or unable to accept the errors for which I voted for your opponent, and your mostly just going around in the same circles you have in the beginning:
- Pro used definitions to explain how Christianity and Jewishness are not mutually exclusive. He did that via definitions.
- You asserted a number of “facts” about race and genetics that were unsupported by any links, sources or data : meaning you didn't warrant your claim.
Your argument appears to be that you feel I should have accepted your argument at face value despite you not warranting it, despite your opponent warranting his, and despite the fact you shared none of this subsequent detail in your debate. Your whole argument appears predicated on the notion that your opponent has to do more to show that the word Jew can imply ethnicity, than show an authorative definition showing it so.
I completely understand your argument - it’s just really bad. You don’t seem to get that you have to warrant your claims. You can assert that Jewishness doesn’t exist, or assert that there is no genetic standard, or assert that Jews don’t even exist - you need to warrant those claims - I’m not going to manufacture your evidence for you. That’s your job, and your failure to do so is why you lost.
What you’re doing, is throwing out all the things that were in your head when you wrote your argument - but didn’t put in your debate.
The resolution is “it’s possible to be a Christian Jew”
If Jew is an ethnicity - and Christianity is a faith - then the two are not mutually exclusive and as such it’s possible to be both. Right?
Your argument is that it’s not possible to be a Jew by ethnicity - your raising the existential argument here, and you don’t back it up with any data. Hence you lose
When he is arguing you can be a Christian Jew - it depends on what the definition of Jew you use. Words can have different meaning, and selecting a dictionary definition of the word “Jew” that denotes origin or ethnicity is inherently compatible with being Christian. When it comes to what words mean - the dictionary is authorative, so this sets up a solid case for your opponent - despite your objection.
Saying this, I could have given him a source point, I chose not too, as it wasn’t a particularly substantial usage of sources, or particularly well executed: allocating source points would mean him getting 5 points instead of 3 - and there wasn’t that big of a gap between you two to warrant it.
In terms of how you could have won: two ways. You could have objected to the definition and presented an argument that explained why we should treat the definition as meaning faith alone, or you could have presented a source that supported your contention that Jews aren’t really a race - preferably whilst giving a reason why I should ignore the dictionary definition.
Unfortunately - It wasnt me, but you who let your opponent get away with this argument. His argument wasn’t great - but as you didn’t challenge the definition with any evidence - his position wins. That you want me to rule in your favor, despite you having no arguments against the definition that was warranted, and offering no specific evidence against it, is more than problematic.
It does matter when you use an argument. If you make a brand new argument when the other add can’t reply, it’s not possible for any voter to assess the argument as both sides haven’t discussed the point or had a chance to refute.
How on you’ve taken that to mean I need to read minds in order to assess one the argument hasn’t been discussed by both sides - but trying to work out how an argument fits into both sides of an argument when only raised by one side is very much problematic - which is why literally this is an expected rule in pretty much every debate I have ever seen.
If you had already had rounds to discuss the claim - then this would be a point - provided it stems directly from the claim.
If you were raising a new point in defense or against the resolution - unrelated to specific individual claims - that’s a new argument.
Other arguments have had time to be used, rebutted, refuted and defended: so as a tabula rasa voter you have enough information to weigh a decision on arguments. For a new argument in final round, you haven’t heard from both sides and haven’t had time to hear both sides points, so you can either ignore the point (as Bsh - and literally everyone else agrees), or you can weigh the point - as it’s impossible to weigh the point in isolation of other arguments without bringing in external factors if you’ve only heard one side - accepting last round arguments implicitly implies you want judges to insert their personal opinion of your argument.
And that is a complete misrepresentation of everything I’ve said and complete untrue for all the reasons I’ve listed. I’ve clearly explained why and how your opponent warranted his claim.
If you I think demanding one side provides a warrant for their claims is vacuous, or could be applied to any position - then there’s not much point in me carrying on the conversation as if you don’t get that key premise, there’s not a lot more I can say.
Secondly, you are very much accusing me of holding your opponent to a different standard. You accused me of ignoring your data, whilst allowing your opponent to effectively make any argument he liked. Of course as shown, neither of those claims are actually true.
The main issue here is that you neglected to provide any evidence or warrant for your claims. Your opponent relies on warrant from the definition he used and cited. Ergo he wins - and it wasn’t even a hard decision.
If you dont or won’t understand the reasoning behind that - then I can’t really say much more other than you’re going to lose a lot of debates if you base your arguments on that understanding.
Basically, you’re making a major straw man by implying I am holding your opponent to a different standard. I clearly outlined what the standard was - why he passed and you failed.
I’m taking that as you haven’t objected to the remaining points - that you understand the error you were making interpreting my position.
By all means, please point where you included specific data in any of your debate rounds.
While you may or may not be factually correct, it’s up to you to source and warrant your positive claims if you make them. I cannot simply declare that you are correct because I have googled your position - incorporating external data not included in the debate is expressly forbidden. It’s up to you to warrant your claims, not me. If you make a claim for which you have the burden of proof - you have to support it.
If your opponent had said Jews are potatoes - he’d have to warrant his claim too, and he’s have to provide a justification for it including a source too.
My reasoning for accepting your opponents position is his source and definition of the words, the same wouldn’t apply for this theoretical claim. So this is a really a grotesque straw man of the logic I am using.
Finally I’m telling you what I mean by a semantic and definitional argument: you may accept my definition or not; I’m advancing it to explain my understanding of the phrase I’m the context I’m using it. While ontological proves are a subset of both; I would still consider haggling over the
Validity of a definition a definitional argument, and I would consider attempts to portray the resolution as meaning something other than apparently intended as a semantic argument (though there other forms)
I often use semantic and definitional argument interchangeably, as they mean something very close. A semantic argument is when you deviate from the intended avenue of argument and instead attempt to win based on a narrow or specific interpretation of how this he resolution or argument was written. A definitional argument is one where the argument is won over the meaning of the word. In this case they are much the same.
Now, what evidence is there for a Jewish Race? I don’t know: you didn’t list any specific quantifiable evidence.
All I saw was the dictionary - which implies that Jewish could have a component of descent and you asserting that they don’t. The sourced argument wins.
Definitional and semantic arguments, are often weak (though depends on the context), in this context you needed data to support your position: as all I had was my own interpretation of where the default position was.
The final point, was that you claimed she was inconsistent in her position. Now, the issue here is that pro was specific about what BS did, and what is error was. This was validatable by looking at the video.
Her being “inconsistent”, was not corroborated by you. How was she inconsistent? On what points? How was this position contradictory? Do I have to take your word that she was - or is there specific actions that you reference that means I can assume she was incoherent. It’s the former. This means your claim is unsupported. Secondly - even were this true, in what way does this show Shapiro wasn’t mischaracterizing liberals, or making a false equivalence? As you don’t say why this shows pros claim is false, and it isn’t clear - this point is also irrelevant.
It’s a common error - I find - to simply attack an opponent, and view the attack as a rebuttal. In reality an attack must be relevant to the point in order to count - yours was not.
Unfortunately, when you make arguments - every thing you want to say about a given position is in your head - and debaters rarely if ever manage to write down all they have in their head in a way that extols exactly how strong they feel their position is. This offen leads to a situation where a debater can’t accept that a weak rebuttal of weak argument they feel is strong is perceived as such - after all, if you thought your argument was weak - you probably wouldn’t make it.
In this respect, you objected to pros characterization that Ben is referring to “all”, and simply “most”. Accepting that BS characterizes these positions as those do “most liberals”, is a bad argument that cedes ground to your opponent - who is making this argument. Just because “most” is better than “all” does not mean the lesser point is good for you.
The second part - is that Shapiro likened abortion to the Slave Trade - given that the slave trade was universally condemned, and abortion rights are supported by at the very least a plurality - my default has to be that this is a false equivalence. You have to show me that this is not an unfair characterization. In your rebuttal you mostly just reiterated this false equivalence. That you may share the position with Shapiro - does not mean it is correct, nor does it show that this is not a false equivalence.
Neither of these two points do anything to rebut the contention.
Now, this woman may have had a swastika tattooed on her head, and been posting a Nazi salute. This on its own doesn’t make Ben Shapiro an intellectual - nor does it inherently mitigate the claims pro made about his intellectual dishonesty. That the woman was “anti intellectual”, as a result does not rebut or advance the claim that Shapiro is mischaracterizing the lefts position - this means this point is irrelevant.
What you did, was argue that Ben only conflates this position with “most” left wingers - not all: which pretty bad for your position . You then argue that Ben didn’t incorrectly conflate the slave trade with abortion - by restating what the obvious conflation was: which is worse. You made a number of arguments about the woman - that she was anti intellectual (irrelevant), that she had an incoherent position (unsupported), and that she made a particular quote (in this case which was irrelevant).
I wouldn’t consider any of those a valid counter : nor did you address any of the other examples raised.
You needed to be specific, targeted and relevant - and you weren’t any of those things i this rebuttal.
“Con appears to be arguing mostly that being an intellectual means being smart”
“There’s a whole tonne of factual claims made by both sides that I simply cannot assess for validity.”
I can’t really work out how I am supposed to assess the claim “he backs everything up with facts and logic and never hesitates to answer questions or back up his political positions.” without any more detail than you provided. On the other hand, the specific claims made by pro - that he grossly over generalizes was supported by multiple videos and more specific detail that I could validate.
The modern world has a wonderful tool called “Google” where you can “search” people places and things. Alternatively, there is also a magic tool called a “scroll bar” which you can used to reveal hidden texts at the bottom of a page!
If you had done this, instead of apparently assuming your own personal interpretation is correct for no reason, at the bottom of the article, you could have read:
“Rutger Bregman is the author of Utopia for Realists: The Case for a Universal Basic Income, Open Borders, and a 15-Hour Workweek”
So he absolutely does advocate for those things.
The more utterly absurd question you ask : is why does a newspaper publish opinion peices if it doesn’t support them. Do you know how newspapers work? Are you assuming they closely vet their opinion peices for ideological purity? While this maybe true of many ultraright wing news outlets that you may follow - but the majority of online news outlets I’ve read share conflicting ideas and opinion happily in order to reflect the various types of debate that are at the political core. This is no different - and this guy probably got a bit of exposure due to his outburst at Davis.
I strongly suspect you have a massively distorted idea at how this sort of media works, just as you have a vastly distorted understanding of the lefts posiions on open borders.
The author advocates for 15 hour working weeks, and open borders.
He is a fringe figure, and his position is a fringe position. This is after you confused a news organization publishing an opinion peice by a fringe figure with that organization supporting that position.
Open borders are a fringe position - not ostensibly held by any major left wing organizarions or figures, to any meaningful degree. It’s just typical right wing misrepresentation and mischaracterization.
No, Fortune doesn’t support open borders. Newspapers and sites frequently allow contrasting opinion pieces to be written and publish by various groups. This is just an opinion price by why appears to be a fringe group that was published by fortune.
I suspect you’ll find many left wing groups that support less restrictive borders, changes in immigration law, and even examples of few restrictions between specific countries - which the right and people like you mischaracterize as open borders - but I don’t think you’ll be able to find anyone who actually supports open borders that is mainstream.
What actually happens, is that liberals talk about specific changes to immigration or asylum rules, then conservatives flip out and either deliberately distort or otherwise intentionally misrepresent what’s actually being proposed or supported as “open borders”, whereas in reality almost no one liberal supports anything of the kind.
In this case, anyone with a firm grasp of actual reality can see Bsh1 isn’t advocating for open borders, I no have clue why Alex even asked: I am chalking this one up to the same reason he asked a high volume of other strange or naive questions here.
So please, it’s probably worthwhile reviewing what people say rather than, as it now seems common, resorting to Facebook memes, and right wing talk radio for your factual understanding of the world.
Votes, imo, should reflect who did better in a debate, this includes on troll debates. On these debates it should be up to the individuals honour to justify their vote honestly. When they obviously do not do that - then I think it’s appropriate to mitigate with a CVB those votes until someone who is willing to express their vote more honestly can make the decision.
Given that you - a young male - didn’t know what jizz was up until yesterday: it’s probably for the best not to rely too much on the accuracy of your personal breadth of knowledge.
I think I may have reported the debate. I subscribe to debates that are near their final round and then unsubscribe when I vote. I accidentally report a Ronnie as I’m on mobile and end up clicking the wrong one :P
R3: “From self-development to power to family to art to career (which I assume means more of 'do well' than 'get powerful' or 'get rich' since power is another priority and money isn't an option but neither is specific professions) you don't get power to make them work, you get it to be the most able to prevent corrupt people or even non-corrupt rivals stopping your ability to be happy and still deal with that lesser priority and end up powerful enough emotionally, financially, intellectually and physically (which includes usage of time) to handle your other affairs, always holding Power as the 'compass pole' you need to angle all other ventures towards in order to deal with them efficiently.”
100+ words long sentence, quotes, brackets, quotes in brackets - this is nearly impossible to follow.
R4: “As a mentality, science cannot fulfil the one who has it because it is literally nothing but a means to comprehending the quantitative, physical elements of anything and this 'understanding' being a priority means the 'how do I use these physical elements well?' and entirely artistic side of complex things like power, family, career, self-improvement (including how to even 'improve the self' in any scientific way that isn't based on a non-scientific means of pulling oneself towards) and entertainment (this is nearly impossible for science to be prioritised or useful for) as well as unlisted priorities one could have”
Again: 100 + words and nearly impossible to follow.
These aren’t an exhaustive list, there are literally dozens of other sentences throughout that severely impede my ability to understand pros argument - and effectively render the bulk of his points nearly incomprehensible.
“If you are the biggest wolf in the pack, the most controlling and authoritative in any field (even in your work AND your family, both helping the other life priority get evened out as a burden) then you end up able to not only handle those life priorities better but your highest priority being Power helps you define exactly how much of a drain your family, career, science-research and all other elements of your life must be for you to end up having sufficient agency in your life and on others in your realm of other life priorities, that you end up completely satisfied and able to continue with life as much as you can feasibly 'please yourself' with.”
R1: This sentence contains multiple clauses, is well over 100 words long, and is so overly verbose it is almost unreadable.
“The point is that there's always art to power as a de facto thing because simply balancing all the types of power itself is impossible to scientifically justify or explain as you can't quantify 'happiness', sure you can in a census but you can't quantify how happy you are as a whole, how sad you are as a whole and how much influence you have as an actual quantity of any currency that isn't artistically comprehended in a qualitative, subjective manner requiring finesse and experience, so on and so forth.”
Around 89 words long sentence. Again overly verbose, and grossly impedes the readability.
Note: in R2 there were half a dozen examples I could have chosen that were similar.
No it isnt. The “beginning of the evolutionary process” was the point at which there was some proto organic object which was able to imperfectly self replicate.
Throwing out a wall of text with dozens of individual points that you opponent has little chance of being able to cohesively counter, no matter how good a debater they are is not arguing in good faith. It’s an argument by verbosity and given how big your argument was - was clearly both toxic and antithetical to good debating. I would always treat it as such - and would have here had the rules not precludes it.
Hi Bsh - I wanted to ask you to review your decisions with regards to the spate of tied votes - and the precedent accepting them sets.
Firstly, there are two relevant portions of the CoC
“A vote bomb is a vote cast without a sufficient argument, >>>>>>>a vote cast without regard for the content of the debate<<<<<<, a vote which literally doesn’t make sense (e.g. it’s contradictory), or a vote cast based on a prejudgment of or prior opinion on the topic. Vote bombs that are reported will be removed.”
Additionally - when done repeatedly over multiple debates: “Spam is any content which is nonsensical or excessively repetitive.” while not all tied votes are spam, many of the more recent ones are meaningless/nonsensical and from RM in particular have Ben excessively repetitive.
Whilst a tied debate doesn’t directly affect the outcome: it may have an impact if people are, say, searching for debates that haven’t been voted on, and may mean debates aren’t given legitimate votes and end in ties.
It has an impact on perception of the site - allowing clearly absurd votes with no points does not set a good precedent into the future.
Finally whilst trivial - it’s mainly being done to bump vote count to obtain medals or status. As such these votes are clearly attempts to game the system, which largely undermines the purpose of it.
I would encourage you to re-examine this precedent set, and if possible remove these reported votes under the vote bomb/spam rules.
If I have no problems reading and understanding what someone says, I mostly won’t award grammar. If someone’s grammar and sentence structure prevent me from reading the debate easily - that’s when I will award grammar points.
Nice to see young people interested in debate, we have a lot of resources on debating in general in the debateart.com forum here:
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346
As there is a large mix of people on this site, including science and theology experts, it’s probably better to issue specific challenges to someone you know; otherwise you may have people like me snapping up your debates :)
Only 3 hours left
1hr left
If it takes you 17 hours for a 15 minute trip ...
https://media.giphy.com/media/26tjZROm9tXQQXlLy/giphy.gif
You must drive like Hans Moleman.
Unfortunately, you seem either unwilling or unable to accept the errors for which I voted for your opponent, and your mostly just going around in the same circles you have in the beginning:
- Pro used definitions to explain how Christianity and Jewishness are not mutually exclusive. He did that via definitions.
- You asserted a number of “facts” about race and genetics that were unsupported by any links, sources or data : meaning you didn't warrant your claim.
Your argument appears to be that you feel I should have accepted your argument at face value despite you not warranting it, despite your opponent warranting his, and despite the fact you shared none of this subsequent detail in your debate. Your whole argument appears predicated on the notion that your opponent has to do more to show that the word Jew can imply ethnicity, than show an authorative definition showing it so.
I completely understand your argument - it’s just really bad. You don’t seem to get that you have to warrant your claims. You can assert that Jewishness doesn’t exist, or assert that there is no genetic standard, or assert that Jews don’t even exist - you need to warrant those claims - I’m not going to manufacture your evidence for you. That’s your job, and your failure to do so is why you lost.
What you’re doing, is throwing out all the things that were in your head when you wrote your argument - but didn’t put in your debate.
The resolution is “it’s possible to be a Christian Jew”
If Jew is an ethnicity - and Christianity is a faith - then the two are not mutually exclusive and as such it’s possible to be both. Right?
Your argument is that it’s not possible to be a Jew by ethnicity - your raising the existential argument here, and you don’t back it up with any data. Hence you lose
When he is arguing you can be a Christian Jew - it depends on what the definition of Jew you use. Words can have different meaning, and selecting a dictionary definition of the word “Jew” that denotes origin or ethnicity is inherently compatible with being Christian. When it comes to what words mean - the dictionary is authorative, so this sets up a solid case for your opponent - despite your objection.
Saying this, I could have given him a source point, I chose not too, as it wasn’t a particularly substantial usage of sources, or particularly well executed: allocating source points would mean him getting 5 points instead of 3 - and there wasn’t that big of a gap between you two to warrant it.
In terms of how you could have won: two ways. You could have objected to the definition and presented an argument that explained why we should treat the definition as meaning faith alone, or you could have presented a source that supported your contention that Jews aren’t really a race - preferably whilst giving a reason why I should ignore the dictionary definition.
Unfortunately - It wasnt me, but you who let your opponent get away with this argument. His argument wasn’t great - but as you didn’t challenge the definition with any evidence - his position wins. That you want me to rule in your favor, despite you having no arguments against the definition that was warranted, and offering no specific evidence against it, is more than problematic.
Again, no. The standard is basic standards of warrant; despite your claims to the contrary - it can’t be used to justify any arbitrary point.
There’s only so many ways I can explain that his argument was based on a source that justified his claim: and yours was not. /shrug.
It does matter when you use an argument. If you make a brand new argument when the other add can’t reply, it’s not possible for any voter to assess the argument as both sides haven’t discussed the point or had a chance to refute.
How on you’ve taken that to mean I need to read minds in order to assess one the argument hasn’t been discussed by both sides - but trying to work out how an argument fits into both sides of an argument when only raised by one side is very much problematic - which is why literally this is an expected rule in pretty much every debate I have ever seen.
If you had already had rounds to discuss the claim - then this would be a point - provided it stems directly from the claim.
If you were raising a new point in defense or against the resolution - unrelated to specific individual claims - that’s a new argument.
Other arguments have had time to be used, rebutted, refuted and defended: so as a tabula rasa voter you have enough information to weigh a decision on arguments. For a new argument in final round, you haven’t heard from both sides and haven’t had time to hear both sides points, so you can either ignore the point (as Bsh - and literally everyone else agrees), or you can weigh the point - as it’s impossible to weigh the point in isolation of other arguments without bringing in external factors if you’ve only heard one side - accepting last round arguments implicitly implies you want judges to insert their personal opinion of your argument.
“What's the difference between a point and an argument? What is a development?”
This is a development - the progression of an argument into new information of challenge
“You're just making arbitrary distinctions.”
This is a new point. A corollary statement or thesis based on an extension of the previous argument thread.
“Bsh eats babies”
This is a new argument.
And that is a complete misrepresentation of everything I’ve said and complete untrue for all the reasons I’ve listed. I’ve clearly explained why and how your opponent warranted his claim.
If you I think demanding one side provides a warrant for their claims is vacuous, or could be applied to any position - then there’s not much point in me carrying on the conversation as if you don’t get that key premise, there’s not a lot more I can say.
Secondly, you are very much accusing me of holding your opponent to a different standard. You accused me of ignoring your data, whilst allowing your opponent to effectively make any argument he liked. Of course as shown, neither of those claims are actually true.
The main issue here is that you neglected to provide any evidence or warrant for your claims. Your opponent relies on warrant from the definition he used and cited. Ergo he wins - and it wasn’t even a hard decision.
If you dont or won’t understand the reasoning behind that - then I can’t really say much more other than you’re going to lose a lot of debates if you base your arguments on that understanding.
Basically, you’re making a major straw man by implying I am holding your opponent to a different standard. I clearly outlined what the standard was - why he passed and you failed.
I’m taking that as you haven’t objected to the remaining points - that you understand the error you were making interpreting my position.
By all means, please point where you included specific data in any of your debate rounds.
While you may or may not be factually correct, it’s up to you to source and warrant your positive claims if you make them. I cannot simply declare that you are correct because I have googled your position - incorporating external data not included in the debate is expressly forbidden. It’s up to you to warrant your claims, not me. If you make a claim for which you have the burden of proof - you have to support it.
If your opponent had said Jews are potatoes - he’d have to warrant his claim too, and he’s have to provide a justification for it including a source too.
My reasoning for accepting your opponents position is his source and definition of the words, the same wouldn’t apply for this theoretical claim. So this is a really a grotesque straw man of the logic I am using.
Finally I’m telling you what I mean by a semantic and definitional argument: you may accept my definition or not; I’m advancing it to explain my understanding of the phrase I’m the context I’m using it. While ontological proves are a subset of both; I would still consider haggling over the
Validity of a definition a definitional argument, and I would consider attempts to portray the resolution as meaning something other than apparently intended as a semantic argument (though there other forms)
I often use semantic and definitional argument interchangeably, as they mean something very close. A semantic argument is when you deviate from the intended avenue of argument and instead attempt to win based on a narrow or specific interpretation of how this he resolution or argument was written. A definitional argument is one where the argument is won over the meaning of the word. In this case they are much the same.
Now, what evidence is there for a Jewish Race? I don’t know: you didn’t list any specific quantifiable evidence.
All I saw was the dictionary - which implies that Jewish could have a component of descent and you asserting that they don’t. The sourced argument wins.
Definitional and semantic arguments, are often weak (though depends on the context), in this context you needed data to support your position: as all I had was my own interpretation of where the default position was.
The final point, was that you claimed she was inconsistent in her position. Now, the issue here is that pro was specific about what BS did, and what is error was. This was validatable by looking at the video.
Her being “inconsistent”, was not corroborated by you. How was she inconsistent? On what points? How was this position contradictory? Do I have to take your word that she was - or is there specific actions that you reference that means I can assume she was incoherent. It’s the former. This means your claim is unsupported. Secondly - even were this true, in what way does this show Shapiro wasn’t mischaracterizing liberals, or making a false equivalence? As you don’t say why this shows pros claim is false, and it isn’t clear - this point is also irrelevant.
It’s a common error - I find - to simply attack an opponent, and view the attack as a rebuttal. In reality an attack must be relevant to the point in order to count - yours was not.
Unfortunately, when you make arguments - every thing you want to say about a given position is in your head - and debaters rarely if ever manage to write down all they have in their head in a way that extols exactly how strong they feel their position is. This offen leads to a situation where a debater can’t accept that a weak rebuttal of weak argument they feel is strong is perceived as such - after all, if you thought your argument was weak - you probably wouldn’t make it.
In this respect, you objected to pros characterization that Ben is referring to “all”, and simply “most”. Accepting that BS characterizes these positions as those do “most liberals”, is a bad argument that cedes ground to your opponent - who is making this argument. Just because “most” is better than “all” does not mean the lesser point is good for you.
The second part - is that Shapiro likened abortion to the Slave Trade - given that the slave trade was universally condemned, and abortion rights are supported by at the very least a plurality - my default has to be that this is a false equivalence. You have to show me that this is not an unfair characterization. In your rebuttal you mostly just reiterated this false equivalence. That you may share the position with Shapiro - does not mean it is correct, nor does it show that this is not a false equivalence.
Neither of these two points do anything to rebut the contention.
Now, this woman may have had a swastika tattooed on her head, and been posting a Nazi salute. This on its own doesn’t make Ben Shapiro an intellectual - nor does it inherently mitigate the claims pro made about his intellectual dishonesty. That the woman was “anti intellectual”, as a result does not rebut or advance the claim that Shapiro is mischaracterizing the lefts position - this means this point is irrelevant.
You didn’t rebut this specific claim.
What you did, was argue that Ben only conflates this position with “most” left wingers - not all: which pretty bad for your position . You then argue that Ben didn’t incorrectly conflate the slave trade with abortion - by restating what the obvious conflation was: which is worse. You made a number of arguments about the woman - that she was anti intellectual (irrelevant), that she had an incoherent position (unsupported), and that she made a particular quote (in this case which was irrelevant).
I wouldn’t consider any of those a valid counter : nor did you address any of the other examples raised.
You needed to be specific, targeted and relevant - and you weren’t any of those things i this rebuttal.
“Con appears to be arguing mostly that being an intellectual means being smart”
“There’s a whole tonne of factual claims made by both sides that I simply cannot assess for validity.”
I can’t really work out how I am supposed to assess the claim “he backs everything up with facts and logic and never hesitates to answer questions or back up his political positions.” without any more detail than you provided. On the other hand, the specific claims made by pro - that he grossly over generalizes was supported by multiple videos and more specific detail that I could validate.
The modern world has a wonderful tool called “Google” where you can “search” people places and things. Alternatively, there is also a magic tool called a “scroll bar” which you can used to reveal hidden texts at the bottom of a page!
If you had done this, instead of apparently assuming your own personal interpretation is correct for no reason, at the bottom of the article, you could have read:
“Rutger Bregman is the author of Utopia for Realists: The Case for a Universal Basic Income, Open Borders, and a 15-Hour Workweek”
So he absolutely does advocate for those things.
The more utterly absurd question you ask : is why does a newspaper publish opinion peices if it doesn’t support them. Do you know how newspapers work? Are you assuming they closely vet their opinion peices for ideological purity? While this maybe true of many ultraright wing news outlets that you may follow - but the majority of online news outlets I’ve read share conflicting ideas and opinion happily in order to reflect the various types of debate that are at the political core. This is no different - and this guy probably got a bit of exposure due to his outburst at Davis.
I strongly suspect you have a massively distorted idea at how this sort of media works, just as you have a vastly distorted understanding of the lefts posiions on open borders.
The author advocates for 15 hour working weeks, and open borders.
He is a fringe figure, and his position is a fringe position. This is after you confused a news organization publishing an opinion peice by a fringe figure with that organization supporting that position.
Open borders are a fringe position - not ostensibly held by any major left wing organizarions or figures, to any meaningful degree. It’s just typical right wing misrepresentation and mischaracterization.
No, Fortune doesn’t support open borders. Newspapers and sites frequently allow contrasting opinion pieces to be written and publish by various groups. This is just an opinion price by why appears to be a fringe group that was published by fortune.
I suspect you’ll find many left wing groups that support less restrictive borders, changes in immigration law, and even examples of few restrictions between specific countries - which the right and people like you mischaracterize as open borders - but I don’t think you’ll be able to find anyone who actually supports open borders that is mainstream.
What actually happens, is that liberals talk about specific changes to immigration or asylum rules, then conservatives flip out and either deliberately distort or otherwise intentionally misrepresent what’s actually being proposed or supported as “open borders”, whereas in reality almost no one liberal supports anything of the kind.
In this case, anyone with a firm grasp of actual reality can see Bsh1 isn’t advocating for open borders, I no have clue why Alex even asked: I am chalking this one up to the same reason he asked a high volume of other strange or naive questions here.
So please, it’s probably worthwhile reviewing what people say rather than, as it now seems common, resorting to Facebook memes, and right wing talk radio for your factual understanding of the world.
Votes, imo, should reflect who did better in a debate, this includes on troll debates. On these debates it should be up to the individuals honour to justify their vote honestly. When they obviously do not do that - then I think it’s appropriate to mitigate with a CVB those votes until someone who is willing to express their vote more honestly can make the decision.
Given that you - a young male - didn’t know what jizz was up until yesterday: it’s probably for the best not to rely too much on the accuracy of your personal breadth of knowledge.
Reminds me of this sketch
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5pA-7D07-Uw
I think I may have reported the debate. I subscribe to debates that are near their final round and then unsubscribe when I vote. I accidentally report a Ronnie as I’m on mobile and end up clicking the wrong one :P
https://www.buzzfeed.com/jeremybender/animals-that-are-sexy-and-know-it
Vote bob; he is unapologetic
Wait, so are you Titanium?
Good for me. Alone tonight, sun and moon.
Saw them live a few times - they’re pretty epic.
R3: “From self-development to power to family to art to career (which I assume means more of 'do well' than 'get powerful' or 'get rich' since power is another priority and money isn't an option but neither is specific professions) you don't get power to make them work, you get it to be the most able to prevent corrupt people or even non-corrupt rivals stopping your ability to be happy and still deal with that lesser priority and end up powerful enough emotionally, financially, intellectually and physically (which includes usage of time) to handle your other affairs, always holding Power as the 'compass pole' you need to angle all other ventures towards in order to deal with them efficiently.”
100+ words long sentence, quotes, brackets, quotes in brackets - this is nearly impossible to follow.
R4: “As a mentality, science cannot fulfil the one who has it because it is literally nothing but a means to comprehending the quantitative, physical elements of anything and this 'understanding' being a priority means the 'how do I use these physical elements well?' and entirely artistic side of complex things like power, family, career, self-improvement (including how to even 'improve the self' in any scientific way that isn't based on a non-scientific means of pulling oneself towards) and entertainment (this is nearly impossible for science to be prioritised or useful for) as well as unlisted priorities one could have”
Again: 100 + words and nearly impossible to follow.
These aren’t an exhaustive list, there are literally dozens of other sentences throughout that severely impede my ability to understand pros argument - and effectively render the bulk of his points nearly incomprehensible.
“If you are the biggest wolf in the pack, the most controlling and authoritative in any field (even in your work AND your family, both helping the other life priority get evened out as a burden) then you end up able to not only handle those life priorities better but your highest priority being Power helps you define exactly how much of a drain your family, career, science-research and all other elements of your life must be for you to end up having sufficient agency in your life and on others in your realm of other life priorities, that you end up completely satisfied and able to continue with life as much as you can feasibly 'please yourself' with.”
R1: This sentence contains multiple clauses, is well over 100 words long, and is so overly verbose it is almost unreadable.
“The point is that there's always art to power as a de facto thing because simply balancing all the types of power itself is impossible to scientifically justify or explain as you can't quantify 'happiness', sure you can in a census but you can't quantify how happy you are as a whole, how sad you are as a whole and how much influence you have as an actual quantity of any currency that isn't artistically comprehended in a qualitative, subjective manner requiring finesse and experience, so on and so forth.”
Around 89 words long sentence. Again overly verbose, and grossly impedes the readability.
Note: in R2 there were half a dozen examples I could have chosen that were similar.
I am reviewing as we speak.
No it isnt. The “beginning of the evolutionary process” was the point at which there was some proto organic object which was able to imperfectly self replicate.
Yep - though evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the origin of the universe.
And which side are you on?
Throwing out a wall of text with dozens of individual points that you opponent has little chance of being able to cohesively counter, no matter how good a debater they are is not arguing in good faith. It’s an argument by verbosity and given how big your argument was - was clearly both toxic and antithetical to good debating. I would always treat it as such - and would have here had the rules not precludes it.
Hi Bsh - I wanted to ask you to review your decisions with regards to the spate of tied votes - and the precedent accepting them sets.
Firstly, there are two relevant portions of the CoC
“A vote bomb is a vote cast without a sufficient argument, >>>>>>>a vote cast without regard for the content of the debate<<<<<<, a vote which literally doesn’t make sense (e.g. it’s contradictory), or a vote cast based on a prejudgment of or prior opinion on the topic. Vote bombs that are reported will be removed.”
Additionally - when done repeatedly over multiple debates: “Spam is any content which is nonsensical or excessively repetitive.” while not all tied votes are spam, many of the more recent ones are meaningless/nonsensical and from RM in particular have Ben excessively repetitive.
Whilst a tied debate doesn’t directly affect the outcome: it may have an impact if people are, say, searching for debates that haven’t been voted on, and may mean debates aren’t given legitimate votes and end in ties.
It has an impact on perception of the site - allowing clearly absurd votes with no points does not set a good precedent into the future.
Finally whilst trivial - it’s mainly being done to bump vote count to obtain medals or status. As such these votes are clearly attempts to game the system, which largely undermines the purpose of it.
I would encourage you to re-examine this precedent set, and if possible remove these reported votes under the vote bomb/spam rules.
Yeah. It didn’t slow my reading of the debate down.
If I have no problems reading and understanding what someone says, I mostly won’t award grammar. If someone’s grammar and sentence structure prevent me from reading the debate easily - that’s when I will award grammar points.
52 days left.
“Wrick-It-Ralph copied your vote is that allowed?”
That would be a big no.
(tagging the moderators as I can no longer report the vote)
So if he votes for you now, is it because you asked him to? Or because he thinks you won?
It’s so I don’t have to worry about the debate later :)
Just for your benefit - moderators may be able to delete the debate if both sides are in agreement to do so.
Nice to see young people interested in debate, we have a lot of resources on debating in general in the debateart.com forum here:
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/346
As there is a large mix of people on this site, including science and theology experts, it’s probably better to issue specific challenges to someone you know; otherwise you may have people like me snapping up your debates :)