Sure, that’s the argument I could make - I can’t stand semantic trickery like that when it’s clearly not what the instigator implied they were intending to debate.
I know what you mean, my taste is really based upon being part of the early 2000s EDM/Trance scene. IMO, my #2 is the best electronic song of all time. But I guess it’s so broad that a genre it can be anything!
I think Rationals done this enough that I’m sure I have no chance of beating him on those sorts of technical points - like I said I have almost 0 rap experience or even that much exposure - I was going for trying to be purely entertaining, smart and funny. I’m personally judging myself on how smart my insults were, as long as people appreciated them, and whether I entertained people who read them, that’s all I can really expect out of this.
Plus - having voted on 156 debates thus far - there is literally not a single person on this site I haven’t alienated, which doesn’t help my cause :)
In my view both sides did better negating the others harms than supporting their own.
Important, the biggest harm from pro - that intervention causes more terrorism, in my view was countered by con.
Con showed specific examples of success attributed to the war (ISIS), and have specific examples of cases where the harms of ending the war are realized.
I’m going to count domestic terrorism as part of the war on terror in cons favour here too, as I felt con did better arguing this is part of the war due to definitions and being more than simply a law enforcement issue
As a result of all this, I feel the needle is pointing towards the status quo.
Even if I grant that we have lost the war on terror by all metrics pro raises - I do not find this argument compelling as pro does not compare these metrics to the ongoing alternative.
IE, we could have lost the war, but if the consequences or metrics of losing the war is better than not fighting it, or continuing to fight it - “losing” or “lost” the war doesn’t make fighting it harmful.
However: I will note that con points out specific benefits of the war in reducing terrorist attacks, specifically using ISIS as an example.
5.) Economics.
Con offers a primary example of economic impact based on 4-5 million barrels of oil through a straight that could be controlled by terrorists.
Pro in my view devastates this argument by calculating this oil is worth $17bn: and compared this to the war on terrors cost of $320bn.
I am not buying cons complaint that pointing out the cost of the war on terror dwarfs the economic benefit, and that the money saved can offset this is “moving the goal posts”.
I think con could have done much more here to point out more substantial economic harms than he did, as such I will not consider this a harm of ending the war.
6.) Nuclear Terrorism.
Con argues that the war is necessary to eliminate the possibility of nuclear terrorism.
Pro argues the risk is minimal. And that con doesn’t explain how the war has reduced the impact of nuclear terror. Con also argues that stoking of tensions is not only in the affirmative world.
I feel con was more convincing here, arguing that the true chances of nuclear terrorism is unknown, and has to be defended against.
Given that was the only real harm I felt pro was able to show from this part, this is negated.
In addition: as in my view con shows there is a definitive harm in creating power vacuums, he also demonstrates a very weak harm (as pro has the fiat, Im not convinced the stock I should put into issues with ending the war - unless con shows avoidance is impossible)
2.) Bad investment
So pros argument was that the money could be better spent on other things, con argues that we could do both.
So, I actually thought pros argument was fairly good here as he tied the argument to chances of harm of different aspects.
As per the social contract or by cost benefit analysis, it appears pros argument holds water. Why invest in reducing something where the chances of harm are low vs investigation in something whether the chances of harm are high.
As a judge, I don’t feel it’s valid to assume there is infinite money to spend, and so while pro didn’t offer a specific plan of how better to spend the money: in my view he showed that there are likely more meaningful ways of spending the money in terms of both social contract and cost benefit.
I’m not going to give this substantial weight as there is no specific plan, but it’s definitely a point that counts in pros favour here.
3.) Death, morality.
Pro argues there’s been lots of deaths. Con counters that considering the size, there have been relatively few American deaths, and they should be focused on.
While I obviously want a reason to view the high death count as a harm, I don’t feel that there is enough to put the death count in context to allow me to weigh it.
Values. There was an amount of back and forth on the way I should judge the debate. The important aspects here, is that I side with Con that this policy that I should vote con if ending it is worse than keeping it.
In terms of social contract, vs cost analysis: I don’t see much of a difference between the two, so will wait till I have looked at how these factor in within arguments first.
1.) Ill defined enemy.
Pro starts by arguing that the enemy is ill defined, and that intervention is counter productive due to causing extra terrorism. Moreover, he raises the idea that it’s a tactic, and the ideology behind terrorism is the bigger problem.
Con raises issues with this, in that withdrawing at this point will only make matters worse (regional influence), that there is no empirical connection between recruitment and intervention, and that recruitment is also dependent on politics and other factors, that winning the war isn’t necessary, but mediating the consequences of terrorism is important. Con also points to success locally.
With recruitment - pros argument is intuitive, but con is correct that no direct causal link is provided by pro. Cons counter, that political and poverty situations are responsible in my view was sufficient for me to overturn this point in his favour. Pro needed to have more causatitive evidence here. I did not find all of cons arguments convincing, but the last round helped push me over the head by showing the complexity, and exposing causation.
Look, he knows he’s lying, we know he’s lying, everyone knows he’s lying.
It’s now just down to whether mods will take action on obvious sock puppets without specific IP proof. It’s would be an exceptionally dangerous precent for them to set.
Pro got a little testy and said to Con, “There is no way to deny it now Con, you dug your own grave on this one.”
Pro got a little snippy at the end and said "There is no way to deny it now Con, you dug your own grave on this one."
Instead of just nicely waiving the round without attempting to influence voters in a last ditch effort, Pro says “Unfair to bring so many new points in the last Round...Sadly I can't rebuke as per debate structure”
when Pro was supposed to just kindly waive the round he said "Unfair to bring so many new points in the last Round...
Sadly I can't rebuke as per debate structure."
this is both unfair to Con because it attempts to soften the voters one way AND it goes against the rules which say “my opponent will waive the last round. They must signify this in the round. Violation is an automatic loss of the conduct point” because it’s ultimately not a waiving of the round, but a rude little jab at Con attempting to swing the debate.
This is both not true and a conduct violation in my view because Pro was instructed to waive the last round, however commented regarding new arguments which to me is not waiving the round at all, it's trying to attempt to sway the voters one last time so conduct point Con, as per the rules.
I would very, very strongly suggest that moderators take a look at the first vote DebateVoter placed, and search for the phrase “The discussion on dictatorship and democracy” - and see if you can see any patterns or similarities between what DebateVoter in that paragraph and anyone else.
Then, if you see there are some similarities, I would then strongly suggest comparing DebateVoter’s and that persons argument points raised paragraph by paragraph, source points, and conduct points to see if you see any patterns - such as all identical reasoning and points being raised in pretty much an identical order and differening primarily in, say, specific wording - as if one RFD was simply a line by line rewritten version of the other.
Then ask whether it is within the real of normal coincidence that:
- two people would vote in the last minute of the debate AND
- their RFDs were identically reasoned, and granted the same number of points AND
- one of the people signed up at the same time as the debate vote was due, to vote at the last minute AND
- that person was never seen again until this vote AND
- one of the persons has a suspicious generic name AND
- one of the persons was involved in personal animus with the person voted against by both voters AND
- one of the persons taunted that person sarcastically about the loss right after AND
- one of the persons has a history of grudge voting against people he’s entangled in arguments with AND
- the final vote was necessary to generate the win
Obvious sock puppet is obvious - and in the abscence of specific debating and voting controls that we had in DDO, if you’re going to let what amounts to one of the most blantant sock puppet voting accounts stand, then you’re going to make it open season for EVERYONE who knows how to google the phrase “VPN” and is pissed off about being on the losing end of a debate.
Here are the primary arguments from death that DebateVoter did not directly assess or even reference:
1.) That pro said the rules were non binding
2.) That word by word definitions can not be used to define multi-word phrases.
3.) That the definition from Brittanica agrees with his position
4.) That Wikipedia disagrees with pros second definition
5.) That pro is using his third definition out of the obvious context it is used in
6.) That pros third definition requires genes to be directly altered given the sources the definition uses
7.) That pro intentional mislead with the resolution of the topic by introducing a redundant term commonly understood to mean something else.
These are literally the 7 most important point that con raises and pretty much the entirety of his position, for which none are addressed or even referenced by this voter. This account - which given the name alone should raise alarm bells, and who’s pattern of voting has literally been to sign on to vote to be part of multiple last minute votes on a debate - made to make RM lose, then to vote on this one - not only is his vote completely insufficient on its face as a result of the above - but if you ever wanted a more blatant example of a suspicious account setup solely for the purpose of gaming the voting system - this is it.
The vote should be removed, and the account should have its voting rights suspended. The fact this even needs to be considered at this point, given how outrageously suspicious this account activity is - is astounding.
The issue isn’t the word count, it’s your utilization of word count that is the problem.
If you want to spend the majority of the debate in long rebuttals of tanegental points that neither support nor negate the resolution to the detriment of key points that do support or negate the resolution : then you are going to end up losing a lot of debates.
Not all points are relevant or warranted, and if you simply focus on addressing all points chronologically to the same extent regardless of how irrelevant or warranted, it’s going to suck up al your word count, and you’ll not be able address the important stuff.
From my position that the speech by the KKK should be considered as horrifying by voters by default - I’m treating this as a major concession by pro.
Talk about who votes for who seems irrelevant to the resolution and I will ignore it.
Pro provides reasons he is for the second ammendment.
R3: con argues that the dems are better at forging alliances and maintaining peace - so don’t need a strong military.
Cons final round here seems more like a rant, but thankfully he points out this is dema vs reps and pro hasn’t said anything to raise republicans over democrats.
R4 pro :
This was purely formatted, and quite frankly was mostly off the topic of the resolution, or responding to cons rant from the previous round.
This entire round is so far off topic at this point, it’s not entirely what the rebuttals are even intending show at this point.
Con argues that a strong military isn’t needed when you make good alliances.
Con then argues that the republicans are racist, and we should look at the states in the past - then argues we should look at the state of things now not in the past - literally a paragraph later.
Con argues the second amendment makes no sense, and both sides support the first ammendment
R3: pro
Pro drops claims about republicans contradiction policy on immigration.
Pro argues that liberals want open borders by citing three examples- and does not bother to show that the Democratic Party supports this notion. I’m ignoring this point.
Pro rebuttal to cons argument on income inequality and inability to get ahead were pretty feeble here, arguing that people should just start a business, and that being injured could lead to extreme poverty should be solved by adoption was bordering on simply absurd.
Pros rebuttal to the “strong military” argument here is good. Con oddly does not argue that democrats are also for a strong military but instead that a strong military is not a great thing. So I have to give this point to pro - but weakly.
Pro points out affirmative action treats people differently - he doesn’t offer any actual arguments against the merits of affirmative action
Pro argues that the racist, KKK who have historically murdered black people, who are typically in support of the degradation and harm of black people are not treated as hate speech by republicans - whereas they are by the left.
Con provides one speech from one president and uses this to assert Democrats are smarter. This is a completely unwarranted argument at this point.
Con then spends half the post confusing republic and democracy with Republicans and Democrats.
Con ten provides a list of positives from Democrats which are mostly a series of unsupported assertions that he doesn’t provide justification or sources for.
R2 pro negates cons assertions about bush - but then concedes liberals are smarter.
Pro then says it is safe to assume that republicans gave blacks the right to vote and liberated them from slavery, and ended segregation. Is that safe to assume? Where are your sources?
Pro finishes his opening with a list of unsubstantiated claims about both republicans and democrats - just as con did.
Pro conceded the main issue of intelligence, and didn’t offer any rebuttal of cons primary assertions about democrats
R2: con
Con - insanely - drops pros claims that republicans ended segregation and established voting rights .... uh wut.
Con argues that DP is open to sensible immigration policy - and sources this. He also points out that the RP actually has an incoherent policy as its propose to implement policies that form the basis of its opposition to illegal immigration. This argument has a lot of holes, but I will wait to see what pro says.
Con argues that nothing is changing on abortion. I don’t see how this is relevant ti the debate contention.
Con argues that progressive tax is an excellent idea, and comes up with a really good explanation of why relating to ability to succeed.
“average of 22.5 million people displaced by climate- or weather-related events since 2008”
After this there is a “Full stop”, or “Period”, which indicates the next sentence is separate from this one. It is not saying that earthquakes are climate related disasters. The second sentence is talking about big disasters in general, not solely climate related disasters.
Hi Magic, please do not launch unwarranted personal attacks on me.
This current post aside, I have not “engaged with you”, and have no intention of doing so: I have purposefully blocked you as it’s the easiest method to prevent excessive PMs, or insipid debate comment back and forth.
If you feel my vote is unfair, or unreasonable: please feel free to report it. If the moderation team feels that I am not following the site policy with my vote, I will be happy to correct it.
At this time, I have voted on 146 (100%) debates since I have been active on this site (which includes voting for you 70% of the time - including voting for you yesterday) If you feel this record is somehow deliberately targeting you, or is unfair to you - this is a moderation issue, and I will be happy to answer any of their questions on the matter. I also plan on maintaining my 100% record.
Just as a heads up for any future debates - I think it’s fair for voters to ignore any rule that is used solely or expressly for the purposes of improving the rule makers chances of victory, this is a debate site, and trying to win debates by any other means than by being a better debater should be rejected - and I will advocate and happily debate in favour of this position.
I will not comment any further to your comments in this debate, my RFD is fair, and exhaustive - and speaks for itself. I am not targeting you, or harassing you: I am simply providing a detailed, and genuine RFD on every debate I can - which I will continue to do.
As a result of this point, and as pro dropped it, con managed to demonstrate pros definitions are incomplete/insufficient, and the functional definition pro is using cannot be accepted on its own
6.) Con New definition
Con cites a definition from the encyclopedia Brittanica. Pro asks why this encyclopedia is a valid definition - I find that absurd. Pro doesn’t actually give any argument as to why cons definition is not valid or inappropriate, and this was noted.
If pro can’t or won’t tell me why I shouldn’t accept encyclopedia Brittanica, I am forced to accept it as a valid definition.
7.) pro new definition 1
Pro offers an alternative new Wikipedia definition by genetic engineering and argues that it supports his position. He uses the same single word definition method that con already refuted (con points that out), con also points out the definitions of genetic engineering techniques when using the same encyclopedia supports his narrower definition.
Con puts multiple definitions from the dictionary and Wikipedia that support this interpretation - and is in line with cons definition.
Pro drops this entire definition
8.) pro new definition 2.
Pro moves onto his 3rd definition, taking a snippet of the Wikipedia definition discussion, and claiming it supports his position.
Con refutes this - by pointing out that pro is taking the quote out of context, and the extended text sides with him. In addition, con also points out that the sources used to support the definition pro claims is broad, actually defines genetic engineering more narrowly, making it clear that pros interpretation is wrong.
For reasons I simply cannot fathom, pro spent the majority of time talking about how the definition agrees with him, bragging that pro conceded, and spends absolutely no time refuting this part of cons argument.
Both sides justified their side resolution given their application of their definitions, so it comes down to which definition should be applied. Pros is incredibly broad and seems to cover all organisms, con appears to be using a standard encyclopedia definition.
2.) Common parlance
Con points out the common parlance definition of GMO is much narrower than pros. “Fuck common parlance”, is not a good rebuttal, and pro offers no justification of why his original definition is more appropriate.
3.) Redundant
Con argues the way pro applies his definitions means “genetically modified” is redundant, and has no useful meaning, as there is no value added by using “genetically modified organism” over “organism”
Pro offers no rebuttal to this.
4.) Trap debate.
Con argues that pro intentionally made a normal sounding resolution, then switched to a restrictive definition in order to trap people into an unwinnable debate.
Pros only response in answer to this being a deliberate attempt to switch definitions was to argue it was a debate that you had to accept. This appears to be a non-sequitor that doesn’t address cons point, con points out that a trap debate requires acceptance, so this isn a distinguishing feature.
This was dropped by pro.
5.) Multi-word phrases are more than the sum of their parts
Con argues that, like other words, pro should not simply be able to define the multi word phrase based solely on the individual words.
Pro quote mines con: when con says the definition is “related to but independent of” pro takes this quote out of context and demands, unconvincingly, that con is arguing the definition is completely independent of any of the individual parts of the word - a point con refutes a round later.
Other than this attempt, pro offers no meaning rebuttal.
Np, it’s one of the most subtle aspects of debate is not to concede the burden of proof, nor use an argument that shifts it against your favor. It meant you ended up doing all the leg work, and Magic didn’t have to defend anything.
Click the link. Seriously. Just click the link. The link works. The link I placed in the sources works. Click on the link, it takes you to the IPCC climate change PDF.
Simply saying it doesn’t work when it does, is insanity.
Thanks for taking your time to vote, I noticed that you said the walk through was dull, if you have any specific feedback on an area to improve there, I’d welcome (unless it was just a turn of phrase!)
Thanks for taking the time and effort to vote, I appreciate the feedback. :)
Sure, that’s the argument I could make - I can’t stand semantic trickery like that when it’s clearly not what the instigator implied they were intending to debate.
I know what you mean, my taste is really based upon being part of the early 2000s EDM/Trance scene. IMO, my #2 is the best electronic song of all time. But I guess it’s so broad that a genre it can be anything!
I also know you’ve got better things to do, but if you did have time for your own critique, it would be appreciated.
I think Rationals done this enough that I’m sure I have no chance of beating him on those sorts of technical points - like I said I have almost 0 rap experience or even that much exposure - I was going for trying to be purely entertaining, smart and funny. I’m personally judging myself on how smart my insults were, as long as people appreciated them, and whether I entertained people who read them, that’s all I can really expect out of this.
Plus - having voted on 156 debates thus far - there is literally not a single person on this site I haven’t alienated, which doesn’t help my cause :)
Thank you for taking the time to vote with so much detail.
Thanks for you vote! Though I am mildly disgruntled at not getting a perfect 4/4 for diss :)
In my view both sides did better negating the others harms than supporting their own.
Important, the biggest harm from pro - that intervention causes more terrorism, in my view was countered by con.
Con showed specific examples of success attributed to the war (ISIS), and have specific examples of cases where the harms of ending the war are realized.
I’m going to count domestic terrorism as part of the war on terror in cons favour here too, as I felt con did better arguing this is part of the war due to definitions and being more than simply a law enforcement issue
As a result of all this, I feel the needle is pointing towards the status quo.
Arguments to con, all other points tied.
4.) We have lost the war.
Even if I grant that we have lost the war on terror by all metrics pro raises - I do not find this argument compelling as pro does not compare these metrics to the ongoing alternative.
IE, we could have lost the war, but if the consequences or metrics of losing the war is better than not fighting it, or continuing to fight it - “losing” or “lost” the war doesn’t make fighting it harmful.
However: I will note that con points out specific benefits of the war in reducing terrorist attacks, specifically using ISIS as an example.
5.) Economics.
Con offers a primary example of economic impact based on 4-5 million barrels of oil through a straight that could be controlled by terrorists.
Pro in my view devastates this argument by calculating this oil is worth $17bn: and compared this to the war on terrors cost of $320bn.
I am not buying cons complaint that pointing out the cost of the war on terror dwarfs the economic benefit, and that the money saved can offset this is “moving the goal posts”.
I think con could have done much more here to point out more substantial economic harms than he did, as such I will not consider this a harm of ending the war.
6.) Nuclear Terrorism.
Con argues that the war is necessary to eliminate the possibility of nuclear terrorism.
Pro argues the risk is minimal. And that con doesn’t explain how the war has reduced the impact of nuclear terror. Con also argues that stoking of tensions is not only in the affirmative world.
I feel con was more convincing here, arguing that the true chances of nuclear terrorism is unknown, and has to be defended against.
Given that was the only real harm I felt pro was able to show from this part, this is negated.
In addition: as in my view con shows there is a definitive harm in creating power vacuums, he also demonstrates a very weak harm (as pro has the fiat, Im not convinced the stock I should put into issues with ending the war - unless con shows avoidance is impossible)
2.) Bad investment
So pros argument was that the money could be better spent on other things, con argues that we could do both.
So, I actually thought pros argument was fairly good here as he tied the argument to chances of harm of different aspects.
As per the social contract or by cost benefit analysis, it appears pros argument holds water. Why invest in reducing something where the chances of harm are low vs investigation in something whether the chances of harm are high.
As a judge, I don’t feel it’s valid to assume there is infinite money to spend, and so while pro didn’t offer a specific plan of how better to spend the money: in my view he showed that there are likely more meaningful ways of spending the money in terms of both social contract and cost benefit.
I’m not going to give this substantial weight as there is no specific plan, but it’s definitely a point that counts in pros favour here.
3.) Death, morality.
Pro argues there’s been lots of deaths. Con counters that considering the size, there have been relatively few American deaths, and they should be focused on.
While I obviously want a reason to view the high death count as a harm, I don’t feel that there is enough to put the death count in context to allow me to weigh it.
Values. There was an amount of back and forth on the way I should judge the debate. The important aspects here, is that I side with Con that this policy that I should vote con if ending it is worse than keeping it.
In terms of social contract, vs cost analysis: I don’t see much of a difference between the two, so will wait till I have looked at how these factor in within arguments first.
1.) Ill defined enemy.
Pro starts by arguing that the enemy is ill defined, and that intervention is counter productive due to causing extra terrorism. Moreover, he raises the idea that it’s a tactic, and the ideology behind terrorism is the bigger problem.
Con raises issues with this, in that withdrawing at this point will only make matters worse (regional influence), that there is no empirical connection between recruitment and intervention, and that recruitment is also dependent on politics and other factors, that winning the war isn’t necessary, but mediating the consequences of terrorism is important. Con also points to success locally.
With recruitment - pros argument is intuitive, but con is correct that no direct causal link is provided by pro. Cons counter, that political and poverty situations are responsible in my view was sufficient for me to overturn this point in his favour. Pro needed to have more causatitive evidence here. I did not find all of cons arguments convincing, but the last round helped push me over the head by showing the complexity, and exposing causation.
I’m starting to get the feeling that these were not legitimate voters.
Wow, I thought for sure Magic had this debate in the bag...oh well, nice bump for Death23.
Romans 12:20 my good friend. Romans 12:20.
I very much feel that the approach of destroying him in a debate is the best approach. You don’t need to bring a spade, he’ll bury himself.
That’s actually a great compromise. Thank you guys.
Look, he knows he’s lying, we know he’s lying, everyone knows he’s lying.
It’s now just down to whether mods will take action on obvious sock puppets without specific IP proof. It’s would be an exceptionally dangerous precent for them to set.
Kinda hard for DebateVoter to copy Magics RFD when he posted his RFD first.
You may still be able to delete your own vote and retry it.
He’s not trying to hone his AI.
I would vote whichever way you feel most comfortable with.
When I’ve voted on these, I’ve ranked songs out of 10, then added up totals for both sides.
Someone set us up the vote bomb.
Pro got a little testy and said to Con, “There is no way to deny it now Con, you dug your own grave on this one.”
Pro got a little snippy at the end and said "There is no way to deny it now Con, you dug your own grave on this one."
Instead of just nicely waiving the round without attempting to influence voters in a last ditch effort, Pro says “Unfair to bring so many new points in the last Round...Sadly I can't rebuke as per debate structure”
when Pro was supposed to just kindly waive the round he said "Unfair to bring so many new points in the last Round...
Sadly I can't rebuke as per debate structure."
this is both unfair to Con because it attempts to soften the voters one way AND it goes against the rules which say “my opponent will waive the last round. They must signify this in the round. Violation is an automatic loss of the conduct point” because it’s ultimately not a waiving of the round, but a rude little jab at Con attempting to swing the debate.
This is both not true and a conduct violation in my view because Pro was instructed to waive the last round, however commented regarding new arguments which to me is not waiving the round at all, it's trying to attempt to sway the voters one last time so conduct point Con, as per the rules.
I would very, very strongly suggest that moderators take a look at the first vote DebateVoter placed, and search for the phrase “The discussion on dictatorship and democracy” - and see if you can see any patterns or similarities between what DebateVoter in that paragraph and anyone else.
Then, if you see there are some similarities, I would then strongly suggest comparing DebateVoter’s and that persons argument points raised paragraph by paragraph, source points, and conduct points to see if you see any patterns - such as all identical reasoning and points being raised in pretty much an identical order and differening primarily in, say, specific wording - as if one RFD was simply a line by line rewritten version of the other.
Then ask whether it is within the real of normal coincidence that:
- two people would vote in the last minute of the debate AND
- their RFDs were identically reasoned, and granted the same number of points AND
- one of the people signed up at the same time as the debate vote was due, to vote at the last minute AND
- that person was never seen again until this vote AND
- one of the persons has a suspicious generic name AND
- one of the persons was involved in personal animus with the person voted against by both voters AND
- one of the persons taunted that person sarcastically about the loss right after AND
- one of the persons has a history of grudge voting against people he’s entangled in arguments with AND
- the final vote was necessary to generate the win
Obvious sock puppet is obvious - and in the abscence of specific debating and voting controls that we had in DDO, if you’re going to let what amounts to one of the most blantant sock puppet voting accounts stand, then you’re going to make it open season for EVERYONE who knows how to google the phrase “VPN” and is pissed off about being on the losing end of a debate.
Here are the primary arguments from death that DebateVoter did not directly assess or even reference:
1.) That pro said the rules were non binding
2.) That word by word definitions can not be used to define multi-word phrases.
3.) That the definition from Brittanica agrees with his position
4.) That Wikipedia disagrees with pros second definition
5.) That pro is using his third definition out of the obvious context it is used in
6.) That pros third definition requires genes to be directly altered given the sources the definition uses
7.) That pro intentional mislead with the resolution of the topic by introducing a redundant term commonly understood to mean something else.
These are literally the 7 most important point that con raises and pretty much the entirety of his position, for which none are addressed or even referenced by this voter. This account - which given the name alone should raise alarm bells, and who’s pattern of voting has literally been to sign on to vote to be part of multiple last minute votes on a debate - made to make RM lose, then to vote on this one - not only is his vote completely insufficient on its face as a result of the above - but if you ever wanted a more blatant example of a suspicious account setup solely for the purpose of gaming the voting system - this is it.
The vote should be removed, and the account should have its voting rights suspended. The fact this even needs to be considered at this point, given how outrageously suspicious this account activity is - is astounding.
I’m working on it :)
Any limits you want on disses and insults?
The issue isn’t the word count, it’s your utilization of word count that is the problem.
If you want to spend the majority of the debate in long rebuttals of tanegental points that neither support nor negate the resolution to the detriment of key points that do support or negate the resolution : then you are going to end up losing a lot of debates.
Not all points are relevant or warranted, and if you simply focus on addressing all points chronologically to the same extent regardless of how irrelevant or warranted, it’s going to suck up al your word count, and you’ll not be able address the important stuff.
If you’re opponent had the word count to raise a point, you had the word count to deal with it.
From my position that the speech by the KKK should be considered as horrifying by voters by default - I’m treating this as a major concession by pro.
Talk about who votes for who seems irrelevant to the resolution and I will ignore it.
Pro provides reasons he is for the second ammendment.
R3: con argues that the dems are better at forging alliances and maintaining peace - so don’t need a strong military.
Cons final round here seems more like a rant, but thankfully he points out this is dema vs reps and pro hasn’t said anything to raise republicans over democrats.
R4 pro :
This was purely formatted, and quite frankly was mostly off the topic of the resolution, or responding to cons rant from the previous round.
This entire round is so far off topic at this point, it’s not entirely what the rebuttals are even intending show at this point.
Con argues that a strong military isn’t needed when you make good alliances.
Con then argues that the republicans are racist, and we should look at the states in the past - then argues we should look at the state of things now not in the past - literally a paragraph later.
Con argues the second amendment makes no sense, and both sides support the first ammendment
R3: pro
Pro drops claims about republicans contradiction policy on immigration.
Pro argues that liberals want open borders by citing three examples- and does not bother to show that the Democratic Party supports this notion. I’m ignoring this point.
Pro rebuttal to cons argument on income inequality and inability to get ahead were pretty feeble here, arguing that people should just start a business, and that being injured could lead to extreme poverty should be solved by adoption was bordering on simply absurd.
Pros rebuttal to the “strong military” argument here is good. Con oddly does not argue that democrats are also for a strong military but instead that a strong military is not a great thing. So I have to give this point to pro - but weakly.
Pro points out affirmative action treats people differently - he doesn’t offer any actual arguments against the merits of affirmative action
Pro argues that the racist, KKK who have historically murdered black people, who are typically in support of the degradation and harm of black people are not treated as hate speech by republicans - whereas they are by the left.
Argument rounds.
R1 - con.
Con provides one speech from one president and uses this to assert Democrats are smarter. This is a completely unwarranted argument at this point.
Con then spends half the post confusing republic and democracy with Republicans and Democrats.
Con ten provides a list of positives from Democrats which are mostly a series of unsupported assertions that he doesn’t provide justification or sources for.
R2 pro negates cons assertions about bush - but then concedes liberals are smarter.
Pro then says it is safe to assume that republicans gave blacks the right to vote and liberated them from slavery, and ended segregation. Is that safe to assume? Where are your sources?
Pro finishes his opening with a list of unsubstantiated claims about both republicans and democrats - just as con did.
Pro conceded the main issue of intelligence, and didn’t offer any rebuttal of cons primary assertions about democrats
R2: con
Con - insanely - drops pros claims that republicans ended segregation and established voting rights .... uh wut.
Con argues that DP is open to sensible immigration policy - and sources this. He also points out that the RP actually has an incoherent policy as its propose to implement policies that form the basis of its opposition to illegal immigration. This argument has a lot of holes, but I will wait to see what pro says.
Con argues that nothing is changing on abortion. I don’t see how this is relevant ti the debate contention.
Con argues that progressive tax is an excellent idea, and comes up with a really good explanation of why relating to ability to succeed.
“Can I ask you a quick question about your vote?”
It’s a trap!
Either the lead role, or an executive producer.
I made you cry?
And we have another competitor for the leading role in the new film: Captain Butthurt, and the tears of unfairness.
Is that how I should view you blocking me too?
“average of 22.5 million people displaced by climate- or weather-related events since 2008”
After this there is a “Full stop”, or “Period”, which indicates the next sentence is separate from this one. It is not saying that earthquakes are climate related disasters. The second sentence is talking about big disasters in general, not solely climate related disasters.
Yeah, I’m going to have to ask you to stop attacking me now.
The source didn’t say that.
Hi Magic, please do not launch unwarranted personal attacks on me.
This current post aside, I have not “engaged with you”, and have no intention of doing so: I have purposefully blocked you as it’s the easiest method to prevent excessive PMs, or insipid debate comment back and forth.
If you feel my vote is unfair, or unreasonable: please feel free to report it. If the moderation team feels that I am not following the site policy with my vote, I will be happy to correct it.
At this time, I have voted on 146 (100%) debates since I have been active on this site (which includes voting for you 70% of the time - including voting for you yesterday) If you feel this record is somehow deliberately targeting you, or is unfair to you - this is a moderation issue, and I will be happy to answer any of their questions on the matter. I also plan on maintaining my 100% record.
Just as a heads up for any future debates - I think it’s fair for voters to ignore any rule that is used solely or expressly for the purposes of improving the rule makers chances of victory, this is a debate site, and trying to win debates by any other means than by being a better debater should be rejected - and I will advocate and happily debate in favour of this position.
I will not comment any further to your comments in this debate, my RFD is fair, and exhaustive - and speaks for itself. I am not targeting you, or harassing you: I am simply providing a detailed, and genuine RFD on every debate I can - which I will continue to do.
NP, it wasn’t the prettiest of approaches, but it was one of the best executed debates I’ve seen here so far.
As a result of this point, and as pro dropped it, con managed to demonstrate pros definitions are incomplete/insufficient, and the functional definition pro is using cannot be accepted on its own
6.) Con New definition
Con cites a definition from the encyclopedia Brittanica. Pro asks why this encyclopedia is a valid definition - I find that absurd. Pro doesn’t actually give any argument as to why cons definition is not valid or inappropriate, and this was noted.
If pro can’t or won’t tell me why I shouldn’t accept encyclopedia Brittanica, I am forced to accept it as a valid definition.
7.) pro new definition 1
Pro offers an alternative new Wikipedia definition by genetic engineering and argues that it supports his position. He uses the same single word definition method that con already refuted (con points that out), con also points out the definitions of genetic engineering techniques when using the same encyclopedia supports his narrower definition.
Con puts multiple definitions from the dictionary and Wikipedia that support this interpretation - and is in line with cons definition.
Pro drops this entire definition
8.) pro new definition 2.
Pro moves onto his 3rd definition, taking a snippet of the Wikipedia definition discussion, and claiming it supports his position.
Con refutes this - by pointing out that pro is taking the quote out of context, and the extended text sides with him. In addition, con also points out that the sources used to support the definition pro claims is broad, actually defines genetic engineering more narrowly, making it clear that pros interpretation is wrong.
For reasons I simply cannot fathom, pro spent the majority of time talking about how the definition agrees with him, bragging that pro conceded, and spends absolutely no time refuting this part of cons argument.
1.) Resolution.
Both sides justified their side resolution given their application of their definitions, so it comes down to which definition should be applied. Pros is incredibly broad and seems to cover all organisms, con appears to be using a standard encyclopedia definition.
2.) Common parlance
Con points out the common parlance definition of GMO is much narrower than pros. “Fuck common parlance”, is not a good rebuttal, and pro offers no justification of why his original definition is more appropriate.
3.) Redundant
Con argues the way pro applies his definitions means “genetically modified” is redundant, and has no useful meaning, as there is no value added by using “genetically modified organism” over “organism”
Pro offers no rebuttal to this.
4.) Trap debate.
Con argues that pro intentionally made a normal sounding resolution, then switched to a restrictive definition in order to trap people into an unwinnable debate.
Pros only response in answer to this being a deliberate attempt to switch definitions was to argue it was a debate that you had to accept. This appears to be a non-sequitor that doesn’t address cons point, con points out that a trap debate requires acceptance, so this isn a distinguishing feature.
This was dropped by pro.
5.) Multi-word phrases are more than the sum of their parts
Con argues that, like other words, pro should not simply be able to define the multi word phrase based solely on the individual words.
Pro quote mines con: when con says the definition is “related to but independent of” pro takes this quote out of context and demands, unconvincingly, that con is arguing the definition is completely independent of any of the individual parts of the word - a point con refutes a round later.
Other than this attempt, pro offers no meaning rebuttal.
Np, it’s one of the most subtle aspects of debate is not to concede the burden of proof, nor use an argument that shifts it against your favor. It meant you ended up doing all the leg work, and Magic didn’t have to defend anything.
Click the link. Seriously. Just click the link. The link works. The link I placed in the sources works. Click on the link, it takes you to the IPCC climate change PDF.
Simply saying it doesn’t work when it does, is insanity.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Cy4mztkndHk
I thought that maybe what you meant, I appreciate you taking the time, and appreciate the feedback.
Thanks for taking your time to vote, I noticed that you said the walk through was dull, if you have any specific feedback on an area to improve there, I’d welcome (unless it was just a turn of phrase!)
I beg to differ, it’s hilarious.
At least he isn’t using the word “dropped”.
Because that would be rude!