Lastly, Reason #3:
Mass shootings on innocent and non-targeted people. Not only is it inhumane but it is undeserving.
Source #3:
2 mass shootings in less than a day leave at least 29 dead and 53 injured
The mass shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, happened only 13 hours apart, highlighting America's ongoing struggle with gun violence.
Website source: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/2-mass-shootings-u-s-leave-least-29-dead-53-n1039066
......
All in all, many people die for reasons that sometimes make no absolute sense what-so-ever. If gun bans where effective , these people would live to see another beautiful day and future and get to wake up to see their loved ones and friends. Not only don't they get a chance at life, there families don't get another chance to see them.
Thank you for your time , Rai-Elle.
But the reward money will expire Sunday, city officials said.
"The message to the shooters is now there will be a significant incentive for anyone with information that could lead to your arrest," Mayor Lyda Krewson told reporters at a news conference, according to CNN affiliate KPLR.
The St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department said it is investigating nine of juveniles' deaths as homicides, while two others are classified as suspicious sudden deaths," spokeswoman Evita Caldwell
"We have nothing further to provide," she said in an email.
Here is what we know of each of the young victims:
Kayden Johnson, 2
Kristina Curry, 16
Jashon Johnson, 16
Kennedi Powell, 3( 6-year-old girl, was shot in the same incident, a police report said.
Charnija Keys, 11
Myiesha Cannon, 16
Derrel Williams, 15
Eddie Hill IV, 10
Xavier Usanga, 7
Jason Eberhart, 16
Jurnee Thompson, 8
Sentonio Cox, 15
and so many more. [source:https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/26/us/st-louis-shooting-children-victims/index.html]
Solution:
When gun bans are enforced, the rates for child deaths by guns will go increasingly down. Not only will this better the child community, but these adorable and bright kids will get a chance to go into the future and make big changes in life.
Reason #2:
Many Women and Men who are parents ( PARENTS!!) are being killed. Wow, just imagine how their child(ren) would feel because of their father and/or mother was dead.
Source #:
2 Chicago mothers who worked to stop violence killed in drive-by shooting
Chantel Grant, 26, and Andrea Stoudemire, 36, were shot Friday night in Chicago's Auburn Gresham neighborhood. They both volunteered with Mothers/Men Against Senseless Killings.
although the police are unsure if the mothers were the targets, that is not enough to bring these mothers back to their family.
I'd like to begin by showing gratitude to both participants for this debate topic. I have been searching around for this type of serious and real-life problem type of debate. so, thank you.
Let us begin.
I strongly believe that gun bans are one of America's first smart move ever since President Donald Trump has been elected. I'd like to list a few reasons and sources on why I highly believe this is a great move.
Reason #1;
Many child deaths are by shootings and drive by shootings.
Source #1 :
https://fox8.com/tag/3-year-old-killed-in-drive-by-shooting/
A 3 year old was killed in a Drive By shooting .
The fatal shootings of two children, 8 and 15, over the weekend in St. Louis were the latest casualties in what has been a deadly summer for young people, police said.
At least a dozen children 16 years old or younger have been fatally shot since April, police said.
Local reports indicate a 10-year-old girl was among the victims in a triple homicide over the weekend, but it wasn't immediately clear if she was shot or stabbed. The St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department did not include her in a list of young gunshot victims.
On Saturday, officials announced its grim formula for calculating rewards leading to the children's killers: $25,000 for each child younger than 10, for a total of $100,000.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: // Mod action: RaielleBrainster22 [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 6 points to pro for arguments, S&G and sources.
>Reason for Decision: See above.
Reason for Mod Action>This vote is not eligible to vote. In order to vote, an account must: (1) Read the site’s COC AND have completed 2 non-troll/non-FF debate OR have 100 forum posts.
Moreover; the voter appears not to reference the debate at all, and instead makes their own argument: this is not the intent of voting.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: CommanderCornJuice // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 4 points to pro for arguments and conduct.
>Reason for Decision: His reasoning about the AIDS, confused children, devastated wives, etc. just shows how it impacts people around them including themselves. The AIDS through needles (most likely blood transfusions) show that being can actually hurt (and sometimes kill) others. If you normally hurt or kill someone, you can be charged for assault, manslaughter, homicide, etc. It was also a very good point when he explained the difference between Civil Law, Moral Law, and Ceremonial Law. Therefore, I think he proved the point of the argument, which may I remind you all, is whether homosexuality is immoral, not whether you support it or not.
Reason for Mod Action>This vote is not eligible to vote. In order to vote, an account must: (1) Read the site’s COC AND have completed 2 non-troll/non-FF debate OR have 100 forum posts.
In addition, the voter does not justify either arguments or conduct as required. The voters does not survey and weigh arguments the main arguments; nor provides any explanation of conduct.
To award arguments, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Jonathon.Horowitz // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 3 points to pro for arguments 2 points to con for sources
>Reason for Decision: I'm a republican and agree that the Torah focuses on republican values.
Reason for Mod Action>This vote is not eligible to vote. In order to vote, an account must: (1) Read the site’s COC AND have completed 2 non-troll/non-FF debate OR have 100 forum posts.
In addition, the voter does not justify either arguments or sources as requires.
The voters does not survey and weigh arguments, compare and assess sources and the impact they had in the debate
To award arguments, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision.
To award sources points, the voter must (1) explain how the debaters' sources impacted the debate, (2) directly assess the strength/utility of at least one source in particular cited in the debate, and (3) explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's.
Arguments: I'm giving this one to pro because while debating and debate voting fall into the same category I don't think that debate voting is part of the general topic of debating as you don't have to vote to have a debate. Also, Con was nitpicking a lot saying things like, "What do you mean by good?" or, "What do you mean by adulthood?" even though I'm sure he knew what Pro was talking about. Don't get me wrong Pro kept adding on points at the end even when he shouldn't have and wasn't very good at defending his adulthood point even though it was easy to defend. This was almost a tie except for the fact Pro brought in irl debating into this which I thought was very smart and something Con did not take points from.
Sources: Con didn't use sources so it's an automatic win in this sub-category for pro
Grammar: Both made grammar mistakes, Pro didn't know how to use appositive phrases and was a bit hypocritical when he had grammar mistakes in his sentences where he was pointing out grammar mistakes. But Con didn't really use comma's so I guess it balances out.
Conduct: Pro was ruder with points and counterpoints than Con, such as when he said, "Debate voting and debating are two different things, as soon as you understand that fact, we can actually debate." which he probably could've phrased nicer, or when he said, "Have you ever debate IRL, do you even know what a crossfire is?" which also could've been phrased nicer.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: WaterPhoenix // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 5 points to pro for arguments and sources, 1 point to pro for conduct.
>Reason for Decision: See above
Reason for Mod Action>none of the points are sufficient. The voters does not survey and weigh arguments, compare and assess sources and the impact they had in the debate (one side having no sources is not grounds for point allocation); not did the voter explain how the conduct was sufficiently toxic or severe to warrant conduct mark down.
To award arguments, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision.
To award sources points, the voter must (1) explain how the debaters' sources impacted the debate, (2) directly assess the strength/utility of at least one source in particular cited in the debate, and (3) explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's.
To award conduct points, the voter must (1) identify specific instances of misconduct, (2) explain how this misconduct was excessive, unfair, or in breach of the debate's rules, and (3) compare each debater's conduct.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: PressF4Respect // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: win to con
>Reason for Decision: "Moar Sorces”
Reason for Mod Action>This vote is insufficient, To cast a sufficient vote in the choose winner system, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks: (a) survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate, (b) weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself), and (c) explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points. Weighing entails analyzing how the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments outweighed (that is, out-impacted) and/or precluded another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: PressF4Respect // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: win to pro
>Reason for Decision: "French surrendered in WWII, UK didn't”
Reason for Mod Action>This vote is insufficient, To award arguments, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: PressF4Respect // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 3 points to pro for arguments
>Reason for Decision: "More convincing debater”
Reason for Mod Action>This vote is insufficient, To award arguments, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision.
I don’t believe in intelligent design. I am pointing out that God is not a reasonable conclusion, and that you’re asserting it despite it not following from the evidence you’ve presented by showing that even if we assume everything you’ve said is true, God is still not the most likely, or the only options.
*******************************************************************
This debate is designated as a troll debate - as such eligible votes on this debate will not be moderated
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
This debate is designated as a troll debate - as such eligible votes on this debate will not be moderated
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: TheAtheist // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: win to con.
>Reason for Decision: "Pro's entire argument is a massive hot mess of strawman fallacies, arguments from authority, non sequiturs, and outright bullshit, crowned with the worst formatting I have seen in my life and absolutely terrible grammar. Pro said such "genius" statements like: "If past events are 100 percent. Then it is 100 percent chance that Jesus created life", which is the most ridicolous non sequitur I have ever seen. I don't have time to write down all my reasons, so I'm just giving Con a win because Pro had god awful grammar and formating. Vote Con.”
Reason for Mod Action>This vote is insufficient, as it does not go into enough specific detail on any of the arguments presented from either side, nor weight why the grammar was so sufficiently bad to outweigh the arguments.
To cast a sufficient vote in the choose winner system, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks: (a) survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate, (b) weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself), and (c) explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points. Weighing entails analyzing how the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments outweighed (that is, out-impacted) and/or precluded another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Dr.Franklin // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: win to pro.
>Reason for Decision: "CVB The Atheist
He did not evaluate Con's argument
He also did not back up his claims on spelling and grammer.Remove when neccasery
I ask other voters to counter wizofz too
Everybody deserves a chanch, even crossed
I guess RM was right all along,huh smh.”
Reason for Mod Action>Counter Vote Bombs are expressly prohibited on moderated debates. If you have issues with another vote, this should be dealt with by reporting the vote in question.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Wizofoz // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: win to con.
>Reason for Decision: "Pro simply made bare assertions, argued from the authority of religious texts, and at times simply ignored factual evidence give by con (such as thw scientific meaning of "Theory".
Con backed his arguments with logic and relevant references.”
Reason for Mod Action>This vote is not eligible to vote. In order to vote, an account must: (1) Read the site’s COC AND have completed 2 non-troll/non-FF debate OR have 100 forum posts.
Googles SEC filings indicates I’m correct, and the claims that you made multiple times, that companies would never have majority non voting stock, that I could never ever find a single company that did, that google definitely didn’t, and I wouldn’t be able to show google did were not correct.
That you went a dozen posts doubling down on the claim, being repeatedly proven wrong and still - after being confronted with someone who is prepared to search the internet for facts - not bothering to check whether what you’re saying Is true, and still acting like you’re still correct despite the clear documentary evidence is a microcosm of why you lost this, and other debates: and very much why everyone laughs at you when you claim you’re a strategic genius.
“please reveal your source that shows that the owners of B stocks are in any way guaranteed to be Google employees”
Done
“Google is one of the hugest corporations on Earth, you cannot possibly tell me that you are so naive to think it's anywhere near being even 40% owned by its workers (even at the top level).”
It is.
I thought I’d mention that; as you seem to have forgotten that you just seem to have forgotten what you just said, and started talking about something completely different.
Just so you’re aware, a genius or Sun Tzu would have at least googled the information they claimed as true before doubling down on their vehement accusations.
Hell, it’s like you didn’t even know that shareholder information like this is normally all publicly facing.
Way to double down! Do you realize when making these ridiculous opinionated claims that are not based on facts, that this information is publically available? What type of strategy genius throws out his opinions, and doesn’t check them when in a discussion with someone who Is CLEARLY willing to check things:
“Google is one of the hugest corporations on Earth, you cannot possibly tell me that you are so naive to think it's anywhere near being even 40% owned by its workers (even at the top level).”
Why on God’s green earth does a self professed genius and strategy God make opinionated claims about objective reality that can easily be verified or disproved - and yet don’t bother to actually bother to google or validate any of those claims before wading in and vehemently stating these opinions as facts.
61% of google voting stock is in class B shares which are not publicly traded: they are owned by people who work for the company, primarily directors. Same with Facebook.
Interestingly, I think there is only 39% of googles voting stock is publically tradeable. Similar deal with Facebook and NewsCorp.
So the “You will never ever find...” is actually “I found three examples, and it doesn’t seem that uncommon.”
Not quite worker owned, as most of the voting stock reside with key insiders allowing them to control the company; but interestingly refutes that possible argument - but still. Interesting debate.
In the debate, you confused voting and non voting stock, pretended as if they were the same, and made no reference to any of the issues or differences. This is what I voted on, and this is what made no sense.
A day or so later, after your error has been pointed out, you then go a half dozen posts before offering a new argument that appeared no where in the debate: this argument is unsourced, not justified by data, occurred too late, and retroactively corrects the actual error in your debate - but is plausible.
I can’t vote on arguments you didn’t make. And while correcting your own error is a great way for self growth, don’t confuse being able to correct a glaring error in your debate with not making the error in the first place.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Dr.Franklin // Mod action: [not Removed]
>Points Awarded: 1 points to con for conduct.
>Reason for Decision: "1/2 forfiet, neither side convinced me”
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Trent0405 // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 7 points to con.
>Reason for Decision: "Description states how you can't forfeit, meaning PRO conceded.
Reason for Mod Action> Source and S&G points are not explained and thus this vote is not sufficient.
While the rules of a debate maybe used to produce conduct; and the rules here explicitly state that conduct can be considered meriting a loss meaning arguments could be awarded- this does not equate to the debate being unmoderated.
Let me explain again, gently in a way that helps guide you the reality of your error.
Your opponent was arguing that companies should be controlled by workers. This was defined clearly and excessively in the description and by your opponent.
You were arguing that this meant that companies would have half their assets owned - and half of all stock - owned by the workers.
You appeared not to understand the distinction between the two - despite your opponent explaining it several times.
I used your opponents description in the debate title - and his opening argument as it was clear and unambiguous to determine what worker owned meant - and this inherently meant your arguments made no sense any more, as the debate was you asserting one thing, and your opponent pointing out that you were incorrect.
After the debate has finished, the error has been pointed out, and you have now gone a dozen or so posts objecting to your own misunderstanding... you appear to NOW provide a justification of why a hedge fund wouldn’t invest in a worker owned business, as it would not want to pay money for non voting stock.
That’s a reasonable opinion. Which you should find easy to back up with data and sources.
Where did you post this in the debate?
I can’t vote based on you retroactively correcting your own error in the comments days after the debate has ended.
You gave sources to explain that there are massive investment firms that outweigh what workers can contribute.....
To start with - no. You didn’t. You gave sources to explain the amount that the top hedge funds could contribute, but did not make any reference or mention of the potential contribution of workers. You didn’t explain to what workers would need to contribute - this was largely assumed - and you didn’t reference the concept of voting and non voting stock - so your source was largely one sided and arbitrary s
Second - this whole argument is only relevant if you’re arguing that workers must necessarily take up the slack of lack of investment of investment firms.
As pro pointed out - and repeatedly an patiently explained - and you largely ignored in favour of repeating your claim - is not the case : voters have voting stock, and investment firms would hold non voting stock.
This is why your misunderstanding lost you the debate - your argument was dependent on workers having to invest in the company to pick up the slack - which appears to have been based on you not realizing the difference between non voting and voting stock, andarguing as if there is one single pool of stocks for which the workers must own 50% of the company: rather than 50% of the control of the company - as your opponent was arguing
This was, yet again, your error: you made a strategic blunder by confusing two types of stock, failed to address anything your opponent raised: and seem to still not understand the error you made.
The description and your opponent clearly made a distinction between stocks owned to control business decisions - and the stock of the company in general. It was clear from the description and your opponents argument that to be worker owned, half the voting stock should be owned by workers: and your opponent explained that the remaining stock could be owned and purchased by anyone - but would not necessarily be allowed to use those shares to control business decisions of the company. This was - literally - explicit in the debate.
You completely ignored the debate description and your opponent multiple times, in order to argue that it was not possible for workers to own all the stock, and that there would be less stock available for investors - neither of which is true because workers only have voting stock - as your opponent stated
You either didn’t read the debate description, didn’t understand it, didn’t realize despite your opponent mentioning it multiple times, or realized all of these things and simply didn’t mention this key distinction despite it being central to the opponents thesis and definition of worker owned.
Either way, the lack of thought, or strategic error undermined you’re entire argument.
However - as I noted you didn’t bother refuting your opponent, and the debate still boiled down to well explained and justified facts backed up by studies and data vs a vehemently asserted opinion, and 40% or the debate rounds dedicated to explaining how you had won.
1.) The description distinguishes the two stock types: your opponent made the distinction multiple times in the debate, and even helpfully explained it in his second round. 75% of your argument was based entirely on you clearly and completely misunderstanding what was being discussed.
2.) You offered no rebuttal - your opponent offered detailed evidence and clear benefits. It is strategic suicide in a debate to simply drop every single thing your opponent said.
3.) You offered no source basis for any of your points - again, strategically suicidal in a policy debate - meaning that it was study based claims supported by facts vs your vehemently stated opinion.
4.) There is a broad spectrum of possible strategies - in which most other debaters inhabit - between “let’s throw out so many small, individual points that I have made no effort to justify that my opponent will not be able to address all of them” and “I am not going to address a single point my opponent raises in any way”. If you view the only alternative to one as the other - I would take a look at, literally, any debate conducted by individuals in the top 5 of this forum - here you will see a plethora of debates where individuals both address points raised, and do not engage in Gish gallops.
“So when I put rules down in a debate? I shouldn't because the opponent can simply refuse and still win?”
Obtuse Straw man
Your rule violation was not applied as you also broke the rules (see my vote RE: sportsmanship), and your opponent presented a case as to why I should not apply the rule (see my vote RE forfeit).
Portraying what happened as simply one side refusing to follow the rules is a grotesque misrepresentation of what actually happened and the reasons I gave in my vote.
You would have gained Conduct, and you would have continued the debate with it simply being one round shorter. This would have made the debate solely about whether your argument, or your opponents argument was better: so would not have advantages one side over the other (and actually you would have been at an advantage as I think your opponents reply was somewhat weak.
Your two main arguments : that it is determined before birth, and that children don’t know their sexual orientation are very left field arguments against the resolution. The first seems like semantic trickery, and the second just seems silly. I don’t think it was trolling, hence why I didn’t give you a conduct violation, but the arguments we’re a bit obtuse.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: PressF4Respect// Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: Tie
>Reason for Decision: "Neither side made argument
Reason for Mod Action>This vote is not eligible to vote. In order to vote, an account must: (1) Read the site’s COC AND have completed 2 non-troll/non-FF debate OR have 100 forum posts.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: PressF4Respect// Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: Tie
>Reason for Decision: "Neither side had better conduct.
Con obviously FFd.
Pro made racist remark ("Blacks are inferior so I will create an alt account and give them a free vote in their just before the debate expires. They need my charity.").
Reason for Mod Action>This vote is not eligible to vote. In order to vote, an account must: (1) Read the site’s COC AND have completed 2 non-troll/non-FF debate OR have 100 forum posts.
Many people waive to see what the other people want to argue, it doesn’t help your opponent. As there is no definition of what you should do; I think you’re fine doing what you’re doing.
The complete unilateral capitulation surprised me too.
There’s a ton of stuff he could have pulled out, even on that one point. For example, he could have gone your route, and argued there’s no white or black only toilets, or restrictions - and limitations on transgender in this way is different.
He could have argued applying for ethnic based grants or scholarships when you're not of that race could be considered fraud: so could well already be illegal; etc.
Shrug. It’s just a bit disappointing - I was looking forward to some strategic argumentation genius.
If that R3 doesn’t count as a clear acknowledgement that you lost, and gave up; then it’s a full forfeit as you did not offer an argument past the opponent t round.
Rfd3
Lastly, Reason #3:
Mass shootings on innocent and non-targeted people. Not only is it inhumane but it is undeserving.
Source #3:
2 mass shootings in less than a day leave at least 29 dead and 53 injured
The mass shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, happened only 13 hours apart, highlighting America's ongoing struggle with gun violence.
Website source: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/2-mass-shootings-u-s-leave-least-29-dead-53-n1039066
......
All in all, many people die for reasons that sometimes make no absolute sense what-so-ever. If gun bans where effective , these people would live to see another beautiful day and future and get to wake up to see their loved ones and friends. Not only don't they get a chance at life, there families don't get another chance to see them.
Thank you for your time , Rai-Elle.
Rfd2
But the reward money will expire Sunday, city officials said.
"The message to the shooters is now there will be a significant incentive for anyone with information that could lead to your arrest," Mayor Lyda Krewson told reporters at a news conference, according to CNN affiliate KPLR.
The St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department said it is investigating nine of juveniles' deaths as homicides, while two others are classified as suspicious sudden deaths," spokeswoman Evita Caldwell
"We have nothing further to provide," she said in an email.
Here is what we know of each of the young victims:
Kayden Johnson, 2
Kristina Curry, 16
Jashon Johnson, 16
Kennedi Powell, 3( 6-year-old girl, was shot in the same incident, a police report said.
Charnija Keys, 11
Myiesha Cannon, 16
Derrel Williams, 15
Eddie Hill IV, 10
Xavier Usanga, 7
Jason Eberhart, 16
Jurnee Thompson, 8
Sentonio Cox, 15
and so many more. [source:https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/26/us/st-louis-shooting-children-victims/index.html]
Solution:
When gun bans are enforced, the rates for child deaths by guns will go increasingly down. Not only will this better the child community, but these adorable and bright kids will get a chance to go into the future and make big changes in life.
Reason #2:
Many Women and Men who are parents ( PARENTS!!) are being killed. Wow, just imagine how their child(ren) would feel because of their father and/or mother was dead.
Source #:
2 Chicago mothers who worked to stop violence killed in drive-by shooting
Chantel Grant, 26, and Andrea Stoudemire, 36, were shot Friday night in Chicago's Auburn Gresham neighborhood. They both volunteered with Mothers/Men Against Senseless Killings.
although the police are unsure if the mothers were the targets, that is not enough to bring these mothers back to their family.
RfD 1
I'd like to begin by showing gratitude to both participants for this debate topic. I have been searching around for this type of serious and real-life problem type of debate. so, thank you.
Let us begin.
I strongly believe that gun bans are one of America's first smart move ever since President Donald Trump has been elected. I'd like to list a few reasons and sources on why I highly believe this is a great move.
Reason #1;
Many child deaths are by shootings and drive by shootings.
Source #1 :
https://fox8.com/tag/3-year-old-killed-in-drive-by-shooting/
A 3 year old was killed in a Drive By shooting .
The fatal shootings of two children, 8 and 15, over the weekend in St. Louis were the latest casualties in what has been a deadly summer for young people, police said.
At least a dozen children 16 years old or younger have been fatally shot since April, police said.
Local reports indicate a 10-year-old girl was among the victims in a triple homicide over the weekend, but it wasn't immediately clear if she was shot or stabbed. The St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department did not include her in a list of young gunshot victims.
On Saturday, officials announced its grim formula for calculating rewards leading to the children's killers: $25,000 for each child younger than 10, for a total of $100,000.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: // Mod action: RaielleBrainster22 [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 6 points to pro for arguments, S&G and sources.
>Reason for Decision: See above.
Reason for Mod Action>This vote is not eligible to vote. In order to vote, an account must: (1) Read the site’s COC AND have completed 2 non-troll/non-FF debate OR have 100 forum posts.
Moreover; the voter appears not to reference the debate at all, and instead makes their own argument: this is not the intent of voting.
Please review the code of conduct.
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: CommanderCornJuice // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 4 points to pro for arguments and conduct.
>Reason for Decision: His reasoning about the AIDS, confused children, devastated wives, etc. just shows how it impacts people around them including themselves. The AIDS through needles (most likely blood transfusions) show that being can actually hurt (and sometimes kill) others. If you normally hurt or kill someone, you can be charged for assault, manslaughter, homicide, etc. It was also a very good point when he explained the difference between Civil Law, Moral Law, and Ceremonial Law. Therefore, I think he proved the point of the argument, which may I remind you all, is whether homosexuality is immoral, not whether you support it or not.
Reason for Mod Action>This vote is not eligible to vote. In order to vote, an account must: (1) Read the site’s COC AND have completed 2 non-troll/non-FF debate OR have 100 forum posts.
In addition, the voter does not justify either arguments or conduct as required. The voters does not survey and weigh arguments the main arguments; nor provides any explanation of conduct.
To award arguments, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision.
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Jonathon.Horowitz // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 3 points to pro for arguments 2 points to con for sources
>Reason for Decision: I'm a republican and agree that the Torah focuses on republican values.
Reason for Mod Action>This vote is not eligible to vote. In order to vote, an account must: (1) Read the site’s COC AND have completed 2 non-troll/non-FF debate OR have 100 forum posts.
In addition, the voter does not justify either arguments or sources as requires.
The voters does not survey and weigh arguments, compare and assess sources and the impact they had in the debate
To award arguments, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision.
To award sources points, the voter must (1) explain how the debaters' sources impacted the debate, (2) directly assess the strength/utility of at least one source in particular cited in the debate, and (3) explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's.
*******************************************************************
Arguments: I'm giving this one to pro because while debating and debate voting fall into the same category I don't think that debate voting is part of the general topic of debating as you don't have to vote to have a debate. Also, Con was nitpicking a lot saying things like, "What do you mean by good?" or, "What do you mean by adulthood?" even though I'm sure he knew what Pro was talking about. Don't get me wrong Pro kept adding on points at the end even when he shouldn't have and wasn't very good at defending his adulthood point even though it was easy to defend. This was almost a tie except for the fact Pro brought in irl debating into this which I thought was very smart and something Con did not take points from.
Sources: Con didn't use sources so it's an automatic win in this sub-category for pro
Grammar: Both made grammar mistakes, Pro didn't know how to use appositive phrases and was a bit hypocritical when he had grammar mistakes in his sentences where he was pointing out grammar mistakes. But Con didn't really use comma's so I guess it balances out.
Conduct: Pro was ruder with points and counterpoints than Con, such as when he said, "Debate voting and debating are two different things, as soon as you understand that fact, we can actually debate." which he probably could've phrased nicer, or when he said, "Have you ever debate IRL, do you even know what a crossfire is?" which also could've been phrased nicer.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: WaterPhoenix // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 5 points to pro for arguments and sources, 1 point to pro for conduct.
>Reason for Decision: See above
Reason for Mod Action>none of the points are sufficient. The voters does not survey and weigh arguments, compare and assess sources and the impact they had in the debate (one side having no sources is not grounds for point allocation); not did the voter explain how the conduct was sufficiently toxic or severe to warrant conduct mark down.
To award arguments, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision.
To award sources points, the voter must (1) explain how the debaters' sources impacted the debate, (2) directly assess the strength/utility of at least one source in particular cited in the debate, and (3) explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's.
To award conduct points, the voter must (1) identify specific instances of misconduct, (2) explain how this misconduct was excessive, unfair, or in breach of the debate's rules, and (3) compare each debater's conduct.
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: PressF4Respect // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: win to con
>Reason for Decision: "Moar Sorces”
Reason for Mod Action>This vote is insufficient, To cast a sufficient vote in the choose winner system, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks: (a) survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate, (b) weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself), and (c) explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points. Weighing entails analyzing how the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments outweighed (that is, out-impacted) and/or precluded another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: PressF4Respect // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: win to pro
>Reason for Decision: "French surrendered in WWII, UK didn't”
Reason for Mod Action>This vote is insufficient, To award arguments, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision.
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: PressF4Respect // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 3 points to pro for arguments
>Reason for Decision: "More convincing debater”
Reason for Mod Action>This vote is insufficient, To award arguments, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision.
*******************************************************************
This is like the 4th time you’ve been caught copying and pasting an external book or website, do you not learn?
I don’t believe in intelligent design. I am pointing out that God is not a reasonable conclusion, and that you’re asserting it despite it not following from the evidence you’ve presented by showing that even if we assume everything you’ve said is true, God is still not the most likely, or the only options.
You mean like repeatedly plagiarizing content from third parties?
*******************************************************************
This debate is designated as a troll debate - as such eligible votes on this debate will not be moderated
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
This debate is designated as a troll debate - as such eligible votes on this debate will not be moderated
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: TheAtheist // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: win to con.
>Reason for Decision: "Pro's entire argument is a massive hot mess of strawman fallacies, arguments from authority, non sequiturs, and outright bullshit, crowned with the worst formatting I have seen in my life and absolutely terrible grammar. Pro said such "genius" statements like: "If past events are 100 percent. Then it is 100 percent chance that Jesus created life", which is the most ridicolous non sequitur I have ever seen. I don't have time to write down all my reasons, so I'm just giving Con a win because Pro had god awful grammar and formating. Vote Con.”
Reason for Mod Action>This vote is insufficient, as it does not go into enough specific detail on any of the arguments presented from either side, nor weight why the grammar was so sufficiently bad to outweigh the arguments.
To cast a sufficient vote in the choose winner system, a voter must explicitly, and in the text of their RFD, perform the following tasks: (a) survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate, (b) weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself), and (c) explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points. Weighing entails analyzing how the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments outweighed (that is, out-impacted) and/or precluded another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Dr.Franklin // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: win to pro.
>Reason for Decision: "CVB The Atheist
He did not evaluate Con's argument
He also did not back up his claims on spelling and grammer.Remove when neccasery
I ask other voters to counter wizofz too
Everybody deserves a chanch, even crossed
I guess RM was right all along,huh smh.”
Reason for Mod Action>Counter Vote Bombs are expressly prohibited on moderated debates. If you have issues with another vote, this should be dealt with by reporting the vote in question.
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Wizofoz // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: win to con.
>Reason for Decision: "Pro simply made bare assertions, argued from the authority of religious texts, and at times simply ignored factual evidence give by con (such as thw scientific meaning of "Theory".
Con backed his arguments with logic and relevant references.”
Reason for Mod Action>This vote is not eligible to vote. In order to vote, an account must: (1) Read the site’s COC AND have completed 2 non-troll/non-FF debate OR have 100 forum posts.
*******************************************************************
6 hours.
A Hamilton reference, a comment that I accidentally (but highly ironically) posted in this debate rather than another...
Googles SEC filings indicates I’m correct, and the claims that you made multiple times, that companies would never have majority non voting stock, that I could never ever find a single company that did, that google definitely didn’t, and I wouldn’t be able to show google did were not correct.
That you went a dozen posts doubling down on the claim, being repeatedly proven wrong and still - after being confronted with someone who is prepared to search the internet for facts - not bothering to check whether what you’re saying Is true, and still acting like you’re still correct despite the clear documentary evidence is a microcosm of why you lost this, and other debates: and very much why everyone laughs at you when you claim you’re a strategic genius.
Also, I’m not a socialist.
“please reveal your source that shows that the owners of B stocks are in any way guaranteed to be Google employees”
Done
“Google is one of the hugest corporations on Earth, you cannot possibly tell me that you are so naive to think it's anywhere near being even 40% owned by its workers (even at the top level).”
It is.
I thought I’d mention that; as you seem to have forgotten that you just seem to have forgotten what you just said, and started talking about something completely different.
https://abc.xyz/investor/static/pdf/2019_alphabet_proxy_statement.pdf?cache=3ed6a89
2019 - it’s dropped to 58%!
Just so you’re aware, a genius or Sun Tzu would have at least googled the information they claimed as true before doubling down on their vehement accusations.
Hell, it’s like you didn’t even know that shareholder information like this is normally all publicly facing.
Good lord.
Way to double down! Do you realize when making these ridiculous opinionated claims that are not based on facts, that this information is publically available? What type of strategy genius throws out his opinions, and doesn’t check them when in a discussion with someone who Is CLEARLY willing to check things:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1652044/000130817917000170/lgoog2017_def14a.htm
Google 2017 AGm proxy statement SEC filings. Page 31
All executive officers and directors as a group - own 44m class B shares totalling 58.2% of voting power.
But please, tell me more about how I’m confused, and lying about facts that are recorded in googles own public filings.
“Google is one of the hugest corporations on Earth, you cannot possibly tell me that you are so naive to think it's anywhere near being even 40% owned by its workers (even at the top level).”
Why on God’s green earth does a self professed genius and strategy God make opinionated claims about objective reality that can easily be verified or disproved - and yet don’t bother to actually bother to google or validate any of those claims before wading in and vehemently stating these opinions as facts.
61% of google voting stock is in class B shares which are not publicly traded: they are owned by people who work for the company, primarily directors. Same with Facebook.
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/markets/052215/goog-or-googl-which-google-should-you-buy.asp
Interestingly, I think there is only 39% of googles voting stock is publically tradeable. Similar deal with Facebook and NewsCorp.
So the “You will never ever find...” is actually “I found three examples, and it doesn’t seem that uncommon.”
Not quite worker owned, as most of the voting stock reside with key insiders allowing them to control the company; but interestingly refutes that possible argument - but still. Interesting debate.
Yeah: you are muddling up two different issues.
In the debate, you confused voting and non voting stock, pretended as if they were the same, and made no reference to any of the issues or differences. This is what I voted on, and this is what made no sense.
A day or so later, after your error has been pointed out, you then go a half dozen posts before offering a new argument that appeared no where in the debate: this argument is unsourced, not justified by data, occurred too late, and retroactively corrects the actual error in your debate - but is plausible.
I can’t vote on arguments you didn’t make. And while correcting your own error is a great way for self growth, don’t confuse being able to correct a glaring error in your debate with not making the error in the first place.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Dr.Franklin // Mod action: [not Removed]
>Points Awarded: 1 points to con for conduct.
>Reason for Decision: "1/2 forfiet, neither side convinced me”
Reason for Mod Action>vote is sufficient
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Trent0405 // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 7 points to con.
>Reason for Decision: "Description states how you can't forfeit, meaning PRO conceded.
Reason for Mod Action> Source and S&G points are not explained and thus this vote is not sufficient.
While the rules of a debate maybe used to produce conduct; and the rules here explicitly state that conduct can be considered meriting a loss meaning arguments could be awarded- this does not equate to the debate being unmoderated.
*******************************************************************
Thought you were doing Lin Manuel Miranda there...
Sorry - I just re read my vote: I simply got pro and con mixed up - it’s actually con that I felt made near trolling arguments
Let me explain again, gently in a way that helps guide you the reality of your error.
Your opponent was arguing that companies should be controlled by workers. This was defined clearly and excessively in the description and by your opponent.
You were arguing that this meant that companies would have half their assets owned - and half of all stock - owned by the workers.
You appeared not to understand the distinction between the two - despite your opponent explaining it several times.
I used your opponents description in the debate title - and his opening argument as it was clear and unambiguous to determine what worker owned meant - and this inherently meant your arguments made no sense any more, as the debate was you asserting one thing, and your opponent pointing out that you were incorrect.
After the debate has finished, the error has been pointed out, and you have now gone a dozen or so posts objecting to your own misunderstanding... you appear to NOW provide a justification of why a hedge fund wouldn’t invest in a worker owned business, as it would not want to pay money for non voting stock.
That’s a reasonable opinion. Which you should find easy to back up with data and sources.
Where did you post this in the debate?
I can’t vote based on you retroactively correcting your own error in the comments days after the debate has ended.
You gave sources to explain that there are massive investment firms that outweigh what workers can contribute.....
To start with - no. You didn’t. You gave sources to explain the amount that the top hedge funds could contribute, but did not make any reference or mention of the potential contribution of workers. You didn’t explain to what workers would need to contribute - this was largely assumed - and you didn’t reference the concept of voting and non voting stock - so your source was largely one sided and arbitrary s
Second - this whole argument is only relevant if you’re arguing that workers must necessarily take up the slack of lack of investment of investment firms.
As pro pointed out - and repeatedly an patiently explained - and you largely ignored in favour of repeating your claim - is not the case : voters have voting stock, and investment firms would hold non voting stock.
This is why your misunderstanding lost you the debate - your argument was dependent on workers having to invest in the company to pick up the slack - which appears to have been based on you not realizing the difference between non voting and voting stock, andarguing as if there is one single pool of stocks for which the workers must own 50% of the company: rather than 50% of the control of the company - as your opponent was arguing
This was, yet again, your error: you made a strategic blunder by confusing two types of stock, failed to address anything your opponent raised: and seem to still not understand the error you made.
The description and your opponent clearly made a distinction between stocks owned to control business decisions - and the stock of the company in general. It was clear from the description and your opponents argument that to be worker owned, half the voting stock should be owned by workers: and your opponent explained that the remaining stock could be owned and purchased by anyone - but would not necessarily be allowed to use those shares to control business decisions of the company. This was - literally - explicit in the debate.
You completely ignored the debate description and your opponent multiple times, in order to argue that it was not possible for workers to own all the stock, and that there would be less stock available for investors - neither of which is true because workers only have voting stock - as your opponent stated
You either didn’t read the debate description, didn’t understand it, didn’t realize despite your opponent mentioning it multiple times, or realized all of these things and simply didn’t mention this key distinction despite it being central to the opponents thesis and definition of worker owned.
Either way, the lack of thought, or strategic error undermined you’re entire argument.
However - as I noted you didn’t bother refuting your opponent, and the debate still boiled down to well explained and justified facts backed up by studies and data vs a vehemently asserted opinion, and 40% or the debate rounds dedicated to explaining how you had won.
1.) The description distinguishes the two stock types: your opponent made the distinction multiple times in the debate, and even helpfully explained it in his second round. 75% of your argument was based entirely on you clearly and completely misunderstanding what was being discussed.
2.) You offered no rebuttal - your opponent offered detailed evidence and clear benefits. It is strategic suicide in a debate to simply drop every single thing your opponent said.
3.) You offered no source basis for any of your points - again, strategically suicidal in a policy debate - meaning that it was study based claims supported by facts vs your vehemently stated opinion.
4.) There is a broad spectrum of possible strategies - in which most other debaters inhabit - between “let’s throw out so many small, individual points that I have made no effort to justify that my opponent will not be able to address all of them” and “I am not going to address a single point my opponent raises in any way”. If you view the only alternative to one as the other - I would take a look at, literally, any debate conducted by individuals in the top 5 of this forum - here you will see a plethora of debates where individuals both address points raised, and do not engage in Gish gallops.
1.) offered no sources to directly substantiate your claims.
2.) Refused to offer ANY rebuttal against anything your opponent said.
3.) Did not understand the difference between “voting stock” and “common stock”, despite it being pointed out at least 3 times.
4.) Offered no argument, speech or explanation in R2 or R5.
Omg voters are corrupt!
“So when I put rules down in a debate? I shouldn't because the opponent can simply refuse and still win?”
Obtuse Straw man
Your rule violation was not applied as you also broke the rules (see my vote RE: sportsmanship), and your opponent presented a case as to why I should not apply the rule (see my vote RE forfeit).
Portraying what happened as simply one side refusing to follow the rules is a grotesque misrepresentation of what actually happened and the reasons I gave in my vote.
You would have gained Conduct, and you would have continued the debate with it simply being one round shorter. This would have made the debate solely about whether your argument, or your opponents argument was better: so would not have advantages one side over the other (and actually you would have been at an advantage as I think your opponents reply was somewhat weak.
2 day warning!
Your two main arguments : that it is determined before birth, and that children don’t know their sexual orientation are very left field arguments against the resolution. The first seems like semantic trickery, and the second just seems silly. I don’t think it was trolling, hence why I didn’t give you a conduct violation, but the arguments we’re a bit obtuse.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: PressF4Respect// Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: Tie
>Reason for Decision: "Neither side made argument
Reason for Mod Action>This vote is not eligible to vote. In order to vote, an account must: (1) Read the site’s COC AND have completed 2 non-troll/non-FF debate OR have 100 forum posts.
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: PressF4Respect// Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: Tie
>Reason for Decision: "Neither side had better conduct.
Con obviously FFd.
Pro made racist remark ("Blacks are inferior so I will create an alt account and give them a free vote in their just before the debate expires. They need my charity.").
Reason for Mod Action>This vote is not eligible to vote. In order to vote, an account must: (1) Read the site’s COC AND have completed 2 non-troll/non-FF debate OR have 100 forum posts.
*******************************************************************
Many people waive to see what the other people want to argue, it doesn’t help your opponent. As there is no definition of what you should do; I think you’re fine doing what you’re doing.
I will be voting, in starting to ramp back up after a really busy few weeks; however weekdays are when I am most active voting :)
The complete unilateral capitulation surprised me too.
There’s a ton of stuff he could have pulled out, even on that one point. For example, he could have gone your route, and argued there’s no white or black only toilets, or restrictions - and limitations on transgender in this way is different.
He could have argued applying for ethnic based grants or scholarships when you're not of that race could be considered fraud: so could well already be illegal; etc.
Shrug. It’s just a bit disappointing - I was looking forward to some strategic argumentation genius.
If that R3 doesn’t count as a clear acknowledgement that you lost, and gave up; then it’s a full forfeit as you did not offer an argument past the opponent t round.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1093/sin-tax-junk-food-tax-group-debate?open_tab=comments&comments_page=2&comment_number=66
Wrong person.