Welcome to the site! Unfortunately your vote is ineligible due to the rules we have in place for brand new members. I’ll be happy to answer any questions you may have.
In the mean time, please take a look at the code of conduct at here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: LordLuke// Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 3 points to pro for arguments.
>Reason for Decision: "Convincing Arguments:
semperfortis
It was very tough judging this debate, and I think there was potential for each of you to do much better (such as bring up the facts and statistics, like the ratio of transgenders to transsexuals and such, or something, idk anymore), but it seems that semperfortis has won. As I understand it, Speedrace had never effectively argued against semperfortis's claim that there is no basis for gender and it is therefore meaningless. Speedrace had shown it to seem highly ridiculous, but not in a logical way that directly countered the somewhat hard-to-see most important claims in semperfortis's argument. Con had given evidence that there is little need for the change, as well as that there is an opportunity cost to changing things later, but Pro asserted that there is little cost to this change, balancing Con's assertion (there was no refutation of this), then giving his reasons mentioned above, not adequately countered, as to why it is a worthwhile change.
P.S, I wrote a lot more but ended up deleting it..., this was an odd and hard-to-judge debate in my opinion.
Most Reliable Sources:
Tie. No impact on Debate.
Better Spelling and Grammar:
Tie. No impact on Debate.
Better Conduct:
Tie. No impact on Debate.
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.
Yes actually; I’m also going to thank him in the basis that he agrees with me that you’re a fairly annoying and toxic individual. It’s nice that you managed to give me a whole four hours - of which I have barely been online - to come up with a sufficient method of thanking RM. Can you please try not to be so obnoxious? At least for a little longer than 5 hours?
Good lord, stop talking. I’m sorry you don’t understand the purpose of stating the burden and resolution in a debate, I’m sorry you’re not able to understand the difference between objective and subjective in my AMA; and I’m sorry you’re not able to understand the definition of an unmoderated debate, when I gave your opponent conduct in a conceded debate.
But Good lord, your inability to understand or accept any explanation no matter how slowly and carefully explained, nor how many times makes you borderline insufferable. So please; stop. The most useful thing you can bring to a conversation
When your question has been answered about 6 times - is silence.
This is not a debate, I’m not interested in finding links to the win percentage debate, or my AMA, or your objections on other debates. You seem to get worked up about some nonsense: then won’t listen to the answer. As you’ve done it again here.
Anyone else interested can just look at your forum comment history. That kinda speaks for itself. Now please stop objecting to meaningless trivialities that you don’t seem to understand.
This is the third time you’ve objected to pointless nonsense with me. I’m not going to go back and forth when you’re clearly not listening to anything being said. If I need peanuts picked out of poop, I know who to call.
I think I represented what you said pretty well; it’s always good to explicitly state your understanding of the resolution and burden up front; you confusing this for demanding a particular burden; or confusing the resolution itself with about whether God exists.
I’m sorry you seem to take issue with, literally everything everyone does at any point; but this is a reasonable thing that I would encourage everyone to do, regardless of how much you appear to misunderstand the necessity and Intention.
I think you need to google what a debate is; Because you seem to be arguing that explicitly laying out your understanding of the burden for voters and the opponent for the intent of agreement or contestation is a bad thing.
You should always state you understanding of the burden and the resolution in the first round, so that if your opponent t disagrees; they can contest it at the start - and you don’t go 5 rounds both assuming that the other is arguing a different resolution or to a different burden of proof. That way of there is disagreement, it can be challenged.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Kathy_debater // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: win to con
>Reason for Decision: 1. Pro asks Con to call her master
2. Pro is very rude
3. Black people are equal to the whites, everyone know that.
4. Races do not determine fate.
5. I have every reason to report Wylted(Pro).
Reason for Mod Action>Voter is ineligible. 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: debater // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: win to con
>Reason for Decision: It is unfair for blacks to be considered a servant. White never own black. Plus, the same reasons with kathy_debater.
Reason for Mod Action>Voter is ineligible. 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.
Given that opening round - which would have better had it been forfeited ; I do not have the time or energy to make up for the lack of contribution of others.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: WolfHunterWhite // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 3 points to pro for arguments - 1 point to con for S&G
>Reason for Decision: Being a vegan isn't a crime, only if you are... well... idk shoving your kids into all of this. I have been friends with someone, who thought it was right to force their son into all of this.
Reason for Mod Action> This a full forfeit debate. Voters may not award a balance of points to the forfeiting side
Voter is also ineligible. 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: Gatorade // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: Win to con
>Reason for Decision: Arguments were equal, grammar and spelling goes to Average12 and so does conduct (Wylted repeatedly cussed)
Reason for Mod Action> the voter does not survey and weigh the main arguments.
To award a win, 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: Dr.Franklin // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: Tie
>Reason for Decision: Why are you geh?
Who sis i geh?
You are geh
*Pasta Arrives*
AMERICA WANTS TO BOMB ME!!!
Reason for Mod Action> Voters must offer an explanation (which is related to the content of the debate) of why they chose to award no points. Simply saying "my opinion wasn't changed" or "I wasn't able to form an opinion" or "pink elephants smoke meth" are no longer be acceptable RFDs on tied debates. Voters need not meet the standard of sufficiency for awarding argument points, but they must clearly explain why, based on what transpired in the debate, they chose not to award points.
I’m happy to delete debates, and have done so multiple times where one side has forfeited and wants a restart.
I’m more inclined when people apologize directly in the comments, right after the event, with an explanation of whatever compelling reason led to the forfeit, and give me an indication they deserve the benefit of the doubt.
I don’t think any of those apply here, so I’m not really inclined to suggest a deletion when the debate is in the last day of a 6 month voting period.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Melcharaz // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 5 points to con for arguments and sources.
>Reason for Decision: I wouldn't quote ehrman as he says himself that his writings aren't scholarly.
There are 400000 variants.
arguing the textual variance is not proof worthy of contridiction as according to some translations its is majority text or oldest text. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Bezae
what is the NAME of the father, son and holy spirit? Jesus (YHWH our salvation) christ (anointed one)
the account of judas is the same. one is more lengthy in description of what he did. falling head first is what one does when they pitch forward from a tree. he gave the money to the priests and hanged himself, it became known as the field of blood from 2 points of view. 1, he hanged himself on the tree there and died. 2. his money was used against innocent blood. but notice that the chief priests said it was blood money AFTER he hanged himself. not before.
joseph geneology. (not entirely joseph's) heli most likely gave the linage of mary, not joseph.
Reason for Mod Action> Both arguments and sources are insufficiently explained:
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.
It was near impossible to really assess pros sources as there was little relation between the source and where it was used; and a result, some of the claims made appeared unsupported, and poorly referenced. Even if I were to accept all of pros data was supported in sources, there was no knock out blow, or damning data presented that could have damaged cons case: the New Zealand point came close, but as it wasn’t clear to me where this data came from due to poor referencing - I can’t assess that either
Because of this, I have to award sources to con: though to be fair, I probably would have awarded sources on the health outcome sources alone: this was a shining moment of the debate.
What came to mind here when reading pros point - is what if a Sweden was just an awesome country - and it would be more awesome if it full on was capitalist. Con makes that case by linking socials policy to economic freedoms. The whole argument is a bit shaky here for my liking; but in general con is successful in opening a single crack of doubt over the policy in general.
To conclude on this: while I felt pro got the better on key cases; cons argument about death was devastating and never fully resolved by pro, combined with imo con doing better in life expectancy arguments in general basically demolish pros case even were i to award him the win on all other points. Con successfully argues that socialization could potentially make healthcare worse.
In general, pro offers no other case about socialism or socialization in general; so at this point can’t win. Given con wins the only case presented by pro - and himself introduces at least some doubt into the resolution. In my view this is enough to refute the resolution.
Arguments to con,
Conduct: pro started off with insults, and was petulant throughout with comments like “Great a troll who's lost 14 debates, doesn't take debates seriously and believes the world is flat...”, “he/she is intentionally misrepresenting the point”, “By your insane logic with more deregulation equaling....”
I can’t stand this type of behaviour in debates. Being insulting and petulant is for the forums, or private PMs: not in formal debates.
Conduct to cons
Sources:
Con won this mainly on the strength of his sources related to Canada stroke survival, and cancer survival rates which basically undermines pros entire position with hard data.
In terms of cons main case: con argues that the best countries are the ones with most economic freedom. That socialist policies are antithetical to economic freedom. While I can buy the syllogism in general, what I find hard to square with cons points is that there are countries at or higher on cons list of economic freedoms with higher levels of socialization (as pro points out).
Con does not craft a thesis by which he correlates level of socialization against quality of life or economic freedom. That would have been a pretty compelling argument. Instead he appears to point out bad countries and state these are socialist whilst higher countries are not.
Instead con simply appears to try and tie the idea of socialized medicine, or social programs - which is what it appears pro is trying to talk about, with fully socialist countries as if they correlate.
While I can’t accept this on its face - even less so with pro pointing some of this out - it does at least show there so a point at which more socialization is bad; which muddies the resolution a little, as con definitely show there is a limit at which point socialization becomes bad.
Pro gets lost a little on that point; and while he points out the main issues with cons argument; he doesn’t make an argument addressing the line portion of it.
Con followed this up in a way that crystallized a little better. Though implicit, the issue is that socialism in general terms lowers economic freedom - which is bad. With the data con provided it seems the issue he introduces, that some policies benefit some, but not others - and this may lower the overall benefit for everyone, even considering pros rebuttals, is that more socialization could potentially be beneficial, but the broad brush of the resolution is not guaranteed.
Con reiterates his life expectancy argument; excellently pointing out that Americans are much fatter than Germans, and reiterating that they are also much more likely to be victims of violent crime. Con also pointed out that doctors are not trained to give dietary advice, and socialized medicine is not going to fix these issues (nor are there examples where it has)
In terms of deregulation, con largely misses the main thrust of pros point. The issue is undermined that the specific policies not increased socialization are the cause of the costing problems: while cons thesis of why costs are so high may be accurate - he doesn’t account for why more socialized countries have cheaper healthcare. This seems to contradict his point.
Con adds to his point about deaths caused by increased socialization - I’m going to somewhat lump this in with his point about productivity as they are related. Con wraps this point up pretty well here; using his cancer example again, and arguing that while Canada maybe bad - on what basis does pro believe the US would be any better. This is a very good point.
Finally, while con argues that removing causes of higher prices would be more effective than increasing socialization.
Pro rounds up by what seems at this point to be leaping to conclusions. Con pointed out that life expectancy is driven by many competing factors, such as obesity and violent crime: the issue for me, is that pro is simply trying to cast doubt on cons point more than showing in detail how he can correlate healthcare directly to life expectancy.
For nutrition and diet advice; pro largely misses the point I think con was making; that socialized medicine isn’t going to help, given people don’t often follow dietary advice. Intuitively, it rings true - it’s not like people think Big Macs and Cole are healthy.
In terms of affordability; con provides an argument that the issue with affordability was caused by introduction of socialized policy.
Pro argues that deregulation isn’t the answer, and explains that the US is already the most deregulated, pro goes on to argue that issues like obesity already plague countries with socialized medicine, and these countries nonetheless have higher expectancies.
Pro tries to cast doubt on a fairly solid source, by arguing his is also solid, and offering some reasons why cons source may not be accurate or may not apply.
The issue here is that it’s not enough now to throw a bit of doubt on cons point. Pro has to go into more detail here, as cons argument casts doubt on your methodology, by showing how socialized
Medicine can increase deaths in some ways. While I don’t expect a full proof of deaths, I need to see more firm examples than “look at Australia”.
From the cost benefit side, pro does better; pointing out almost all other countries have lower cost healthcare despite being socialized; and that it would make more sense going for systems that work, rather than ones that may not.
The benefit of this argument here, is that pro undermines cons position that the expensive is due to socialization itself: by pointing out other countries don’t have the problem. For this con has to do more to show me that socialization specifically that is the problem rather than the specific policy.
To start off with, my main issues with pros opening is that the resolution is broadly stated; but is opening argument is limited and narrow concerning healthcare.
Frankly there’s so little attempt from pro to talk about the resolution as stated in general, that he does himself no favours here.
I’m going to deal with pros case first, and partly summarize. There are lots of small sub points here, and I won’t address them all, unless I felt that they were compelling enough to move me in one direction or another.
Pro starts off with a fairly good justification of socialized medicine. Pointing out it’s cheaper, universal, that it’s quality could be just as good; pointing out issues in the existing us healthcare systems.
While con accepts some of the potential benefits; con points out there are issues with pro linking life expectancy solely with Healthcare: pointing out issues with obesity also have a part to play and aren’t related to healthcare directly. Cons argument relating to deaths was devestating. Whilst the issue of increased deaths to the uninsured, Con brings up a major potential source of deaths in socialized medicine. This highlights the lack of a big picture view from pro.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Udit // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: pro win
>Reason for Decision: Jenekriuhhhhhhfrgu
Reason for Mod Action> 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.
Saying that, the vote is clearly insufficient. Please review the voting guidelines as outlined in the CoC.
Ragnars vote mentioned formatting, but went into much more details, including referencing the decent quality of your Canada source, and how both sides sources affected the debate . Which is why his vote was acceptable.
I am always reluctant to remove such a large vote when most of its okay; I would have preferred for dis to simply clarify the source point rather than removing the whole thing.
"I find it troubling that literally, every single country in the world with socialized medicine has statistically WAY lower healthcare costs than the US does."
While con correctly points out that are multiple other factors which explain this there is also the more important fact that con in round two outlined a comprehensive explanation as to why the current level of socialization in our healthcare system is harmful to the medical market by facilitating the type of price gouging that causes such inflated prices in the first place. Instead of addressing cons explanation pro appears to simply dismiss it out of hand:
"Also, my opponent's healthcare plan isn’t a very good plan and has never worked before."
As before, even if cons arguments are not sound pro has to show us that they are unsound rather than simply declaring it to be so. Instead of responding to cons explanation of how the current price gouging is caused by the current level of socialization in the healthcare system pro opts for a simple comparison of countries on a list with little to no context.
With pro being so clearly on the defensive for the majority of the debate and con having established several syllogisms that support their premise I am giving points for arguments in this debate to con.
The rest of this RFD can be found in the comments section due to character limitations.
The next point for arguments that stands out to me is pros claim that nationalized healthcare systems are inherently more efficient financially than privatized healthcare systems. This claim first appears in pros round one and is reiterated in pros round two however the actual numbers used are different each time. Pro claims to have a source for these statistics but no source is ever actually given. Because the U.S. healthcare system is not currently nationalized it is hard to say how much a nationalized system would cost without performing some sort of in-depth study on the topic. This is what I expected to find when pro said he had sources backing up his claim but since this number appears to be simply pulled out of thin this point is to be disregarded.
The next part of the debate, cons round two and pros round three, repeats the pattern of con presenting a syllogism and pro attempting to counter it. With the exception of the weird little Q&A thing pro did (which I will address in the conduct section of this RFD) pro is primarily on the defensive for the rest of the debate, so the question becomes whether pro successfully counters any of the points made by con.
Regarding this the main points of contention centered around the socialization of healthcare, specifically whether increased healthcare socialization would improve living conditions and whether it would be more financially viable to increase or decrease socialization of healthcare.
In round three pro addresses the affordability point by a simple comparison of the U.S. healthcare costs to more socialized countries:
Arguments: The first major hitch with arguments in this debate came in pros round two when he responded to cons round one syllogism. To quote a portion of pros response
"my opponent [cites] statistics to back this poor hypothesis up which don’t need to be debunked since I already proved the hypothesis to be wrong."
It is not immediately clear to me why pro is under the impression that his short list of bullets has 'debunked cons hypothesis' or even what he means about 'cons hypothesis' in the first place. After several re-reads I am forced to assume that the hypothesis being referred to here is the conclusion in cons round one syllogism and that pro has deemed said syllogism faulty due to a perceived flaw in the second premise (if this is an inaccurate interpretation of pros meaning in the above quote I put the blame on a lack of clarity in communication on pros part). Pros main argument for the rest of the round seems to build upon the idea that cons syllogism is faulty but pro never gives a very clear explanation as to why this is the case. Pro simply states the claim that socialistic policies do not damage economic freedom and implies that any policies restricting economic freedom must by definition be fascist rather than socialist in nature. If it is in fact the case that socialistic policies do not actually damage economic freedom then pro needs to back this up by addressing the points raised by con in round one supporting the idea that they do (the last five or so paragraphs in cons round one is what I am referring to). Even if these points made by con are unsound the fact that pro fails to address them means that in a debate setting they are considered valid by default. As for the fascism segment of pros round two this seems like a classic false dichotomy. Pro, the fact that fascism reduces freedom does nothing to show that socialism does not reduce economic freedom.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Discipulus_Didicit // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 6 points to con for arguments, sources and conduct.
>Reason for Decision: see above and comment #344
Reason for Mod Action> Arguments and Conduct were deemed sufficient: sources were deemed insufficient. The voter may repost the vote without source point award by referencing the comments.
The voter appears to base his source award primarily on formatting, rather than the overall impact these sources had on the debate.
The voter must
- Explain, on balance, how each debater's sources impact the debate
- directly evaluate at least one source in particular cited in the debate and explain how it either bolstered or weakened the argument it was used to support
- explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's
Con argues preservation of microscopic soft tissue within T-Rex bones. Cons argument here feels like its leaping to a massive conclusion: that because some microscopic samples contain preserved remnants - that it’s impossible for the samples to be old.
Pro explains that iron nanoparticles can preserve blood in such a way: cons reply somewhat misses the point: pro suggested the ostrich blood was recognizable after two years: its not clear exactly the level of preservation. Cons response was to imply that two years was the limit of preservation - which does not seem to be the case.
The issue here I have with pro; is that pro could have knocked this out of the park by comparing the relatively common preserved state of 10,000 remains with that of dinosaurs: but didn’t.
Pros response is not too compelling on its own here as a result.
13.) the unlikelihood of the Big Bang.
It’s not clear exactly how cons case here points to a young earth. Even if I buy the argument, it just tells me that the Big Bang didn’t happen - not that the earth is young. As a result, I can’t really weigh this part.
Con argues that the sun must have been lower powered earlier in its cycle, as there is no evidence of this in the geological record it must not be old. This doesn’t seem to justify his specific contention of the earth being less than 10000 years old, just not as old as claimed - at best.
I found pros counter argument largely irrelevant. How do comets warm the earth? How did collisions make the geological record appear as it does? Pro needs to quantify a plausible scenario that could answer the question - or provide evidence of some wild variations, and their cause.
11.) comets.
Con argues that comets would have all been destroyed if the solar system was not young. Pro talks about the oort cloud and the Kuiper belt but doesn’t explain to me how this explains how the comets we see can be replenished. Even if I accept the Kuiper belt and Oort Cloud as real, pro doesn’t give me a mechanism by which comets can be replenished.
Saying this, both sides are making assumptions. Con assumes that every comment we see has existed in its current orbit since the dawn of the solar system and can’t possibly be perturbed into its current position. Even though pro doesn’t explicitly state that comments can be perturbed over time from their current locations - cons argument doesn’t feel convincing.
8.) Geology. Con argues that the rate of sediment deposits on the sea floor preclude the earth being old.
Pro points out the sediment eroded from land doesn’t all get to the ocean floor, that it is realities on continental slopes, river deltas, etc: and as a result the accumulation in the ocean floor is unreliable.
Cons response largely misses this point, and refers back to his claims that only a limited amount of sediment is removed. While I buy cons point about radiometric dating, the issue is that pros argument is that a limited amount of sediment makes it to the sea floor: and as con isn’t able to quantify how much of the sediment from land gets to the sea floor - this goes to pro.
9.) Rock layers. Con argues rock layers area bent in some areas, and as rock is brittle, it would have snapped, and must not been bent when laid down. Pro points out that applied pressure over time can cause the rock to be bent without breaking. Con objects saying this would make rocks into metaphoric rock; but this leads me to uncertainty ; how much? Pros point is that extra temperature and pressure can allow rocks to bend without breaking: but it is not clear whether this temperature and pressure exceeds a temperature threshold for metaphomorphisis. Con assumes it does - but doesn’t justify it. Secondly, con also appears to dismiss the third point to the case of slumping. The issue for me, is whether to rocks can be soft enough to bend, and then solidify so fast they cannot slump or bent. Pros case here appears reasonable and I was expecting more from con on this point.
Overall, I don’t think con really establishes this point.
4.) Zircons; pro con argues that the dating method has not been validated - this is actually a radiometric dating argument.
5.) Ocr dating. This was used to support a greater than 10,000 year old case. My issue with cons case here is that he explains that ocr can be faulty easily - but doesn’t imo justify why he can be sure every date greater than 10,000 years old is invalid.
6.) impact craters. Pro argues the number of craters is large and there is no reason to be. Con presents a large number of speculative reasons why this could be so. This includes last Tuesdayism, and that bombarent occurred at some point in the last 6000 years. Pro really points out how this is all speculative with no supporting data
7.) Lunar recession. Pro argues that lunar recession points to an old earth, based upon the correlation between tides and the rate of lunar recession. pro argues lunar recession occurred in the past is not compatible with a young earth. Cons response was that the calculation makes an assumption and is indicative of a billion year old earth.
Pro provides a counter to cons objections; that the varves have shown to be accurate to a fairly high precision, that the calculations when accurately performed show up to a 4,5bn year recession.
Pro points out that con contradicts whether the moons recession has sped up or slowed down.
My issues with cons response, is that it seems tenuous; it is an argument that the measurement maybe inaccurate, imo pro needs to square the evidence with a young earth; I don’t think he did this on this points
Pro makes an argument about how the existence of pangea proves the earth is billions of years old. The issue is that pro is arguing based upon continental drift not speeding up substantially; and that the timeframe of Pangea is billions of years.
Pro does better here, I think pro pointing out the mechanics and necessary heat and friction generated by continents and rocks moving as fast as necessary appears a good reason to discount cons explanation: as con appears to concede the existence of Pangea, this leads to a solid plank against cons position - though imo, pro did not do enough to show the billions of years element with this point.
3.) Tree rings/ Ice cores
There were a number of small points pro raised here relating to wats in which we know the earth isn’t 6000 years old:
Trees and ice layers go back further than 6000 years. Con points out some issues with interpretation, and there can be multiple layers/rings, and possibility of error: though it is not clear how this potential speculative error could lead to the actual error, con leaves (heh) this up in the air. For trees con argues that there is circular dating going on. Pro points out that carbon dating is used to confirm ages ; it is not fully clear what pros reputation to the argument that tree rings are calibrating carbon dating, so it’s hard for me to determine who is correct.
I can’t really use pros tree example here; as it’s not strictly pertinent to the exact resolution. If Noah’s flood didn’t happen, the earth could be 6000 years old and those trees 4500.
The ice cores argument I have to say goes to con. Pro says that the ice cores go back 740,000, con argues that layers may not be annual; pro says they aren’t measuring annual layers but isn’t entirely clear the reason the 740,000 number is valid. This isn’t to say it isn’t, but pros response didn’t explain how variability of weather and climate are accounted for in the ice; and for that reason, I can’t accept it.
This debate is especially hard given that I have a substantial background in these debates. It means I know who is doing what, what points are being missed, etc.
I’m going to give a wide range for ties because of this.
Also note I’m really not a fan of going into an external text, or having weird interleaved rounds. This would be much better as a back and forth imo, and much better on one of these topicsz
1.) Radiometric dating.
Pro argues radiometric dating shows the age of the earth is more than 6000 years. Con argues that this dating method relies on a set of assumptions (constant decay, etc), and presents a couple of notional examples as to why we can’t trust it (argon-40 and helium in uranium).
The contamination aspect, and using examples of bad dates help throw doubt onto pros position. While pro has an answer for a couple of these points, pro doesn’t answer the key issue about constancy of radiation - nor explain why we can be fairly certain the rate has not changed and our dates are valid. In this case I find myself leaning con.
Welcome to the site! Unfortunately your vote is ineligible due to the rules we have in place for brand new members. I’ll be happy to answer any questions you may have.
In the mean time, please take a look at the code of conduct at here: https://www.debateart.com/rules
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: LordLuke// Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 3 points to pro for arguments.
>Reason for Decision: "Convincing Arguments:
semperfortis
It was very tough judging this debate, and I think there was potential for each of you to do much better (such as bring up the facts and statistics, like the ratio of transgenders to transsexuals and such, or something, idk anymore), but it seems that semperfortis has won. As I understand it, Speedrace had never effectively argued against semperfortis's claim that there is no basis for gender and it is therefore meaningless. Speedrace had shown it to seem highly ridiculous, but not in a logical way that directly countered the somewhat hard-to-see most important claims in semperfortis's argument. Con had given evidence that there is little need for the change, as well as that there is an opportunity cost to changing things later, but Pro asserted that there is little cost to this change, balancing Con's assertion (there was no refutation of this), then giving his reasons mentioned above, not adequately countered, as to why it is a worthwhile change.
P.S, I wrote a lot more but ended up deleting it..., this was an odd and hard-to-judge debate in my opinion.
Most Reliable Sources:
Tie. No impact on Debate.
Better Spelling and Grammar:
Tie. No impact on Debate.
Better Conduct:
Tie. No impact on Debate.
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.
*******************************************************************
Buzz feed news to report something someone said - not as an opinion peice.
Do you think what it said didn’t happen?
Nearly there. Just tweaking, and trying to reduce the size :)
Yes actually; I’m also going to thank him in the basis that he agrees with me that you’re a fairly annoying and toxic individual. It’s nice that you managed to give me a whole four hours - of which I have barely been online - to come up with a sufficient method of thanking RM. Can you please try not to be so obnoxious? At least for a little longer than 5 hours?
That vote is completely invalid: please read the voting guidelines. You also require 100 forum posts, or 3 debates in order to vote.
Good lord, stop talking. I’m sorry you don’t understand the purpose of stating the burden and resolution in a debate, I’m sorry you’re not able to understand the difference between objective and subjective in my AMA; and I’m sorry you’re not able to understand the definition of an unmoderated debate, when I gave your opponent conduct in a conceded debate.
But Good lord, your inability to understand or accept any explanation no matter how slowly and carefully explained, nor how many times makes you borderline insufferable. So please; stop. The most useful thing you can bring to a conversation
When your question has been answered about 6 times - is silence.
This is not a debate, I’m not interested in finding links to the win percentage debate, or my AMA, or your objections on other debates. You seem to get worked up about some nonsense: then won’t listen to the answer. As you’ve done it again here.
Anyone else interested can just look at your forum comment history. That kinda speaks for itself. Now please stop objecting to meaningless trivialities that you don’t seem to understand.
This is the third time you’ve objected to pointless nonsense with me. I’m not going to go back and forth when you’re clearly not listening to anything being said. If I need peanuts picked out of poop, I know who to call.
Given that you seem not to even understand what’s being discussed, I’m not going to respond to your name calling.
I think I represented what you said pretty well; it’s always good to explicitly state your understanding of the resolution and burden up front; you confusing this for demanding a particular burden; or confusing the resolution itself with about whether God exists.
I’m sorry you seem to take issue with, literally everything everyone does at any point; but this is a reasonable thing that I would encourage everyone to do, regardless of how much you appear to misunderstand the necessity and Intention.
I think you need to google what a debate is; Because you seem to be arguing that explicitly laying out your understanding of the burden for voters and the opponent for the intent of agreement or contestation is a bad thing.
I’m not demanding the instigator follow it. I’m stating what I believe the burden of proof to be so it can be challenged and argued.
You know, because it’s a debate, where people argue, and disagree and challenge each other’s positions.
You should always state you understanding of the burden and the resolution in the first round, so that if your opponent t disagrees; they can contest it at the start - and you don’t go 5 rounds both assuming that the other is arguing a different resolution or to a different burden of proof. That way of there is disagreement, it can be challenged.
I really appreciate the vote; these take some time!
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Kathy_debater // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: win to con
>Reason for Decision: 1. Pro asks Con to call her master
2. Pro is very rude
3. Black people are equal to the whites, everyone know that.
4. Races do not determine fate.
5. I have every reason to report Wylted(Pro).
Reason for Mod Action>Voter is ineligible. 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: debater // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: win to con
>Reason for Decision: It is unfair for blacks to be considered a servant. White never own black. Plus, the same reasons with kathy_debater.
Reason for Mod Action>Voter is ineligible. 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.
*******************************************************************
Given that opening round - which would have better had it been forfeited ; I do not have the time or energy to make up for the lack of contribution of others.
As long as I award you the balance of points: a conceded debate is unmoderated.
I award conduct only for concessions as conceding when the other side has won, is classy and to be encouraged.
Snarky comments at only being awarded a balance of 5 points, on the other hand - is not.
Because he gracefully conceded the debate, showing class, and style.
Why are you objecting to me awarding you a delta of 5 points?
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: WolfHunterWhite // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 3 points to pro for arguments - 1 point to con for S&G
>Reason for Decision: Being a vegan isn't a crime, only if you are... well... idk shoving your kids into all of this. I have been friends with someone, who thought it was right to force their son into all of this.
Reason for Mod Action> This a full forfeit debate. Voters may not award a balance of points to the forfeiting side
Voter is also ineligible. 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: Gatorade // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: Win to con
>Reason for Decision: Arguments were equal, grammar and spelling goes to Average12 and so does conduct (Wylted repeatedly cussed)
Reason for Mod Action> the voter does not survey and weigh the main arguments.
To award a win, 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: Dr.Franklin // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: Tie
>Reason for Decision: Why are you geh?
Who sis i geh?
You are geh
*Pasta Arrives*
AMERICA WANTS TO BOMB ME!!!
Reason for Mod Action> Voters must offer an explanation (which is related to the content of the debate) of why they chose to award no points. Simply saying "my opinion wasn't changed" or "I wasn't able to form an opinion" or "pink elephants smoke meth" are no longer be acceptable RFDs on tied debates. Voters need not meet the standard of sufficiency for awarding argument points, but they must clearly explain why, based on what transpired in the debate, they chose not to award points.
*******************************************************************
I’m happy to delete debates, and have done so multiple times where one side has forfeited and wants a restart.
I’m more inclined when people apologize directly in the comments, right after the event, with an explanation of whatever compelling reason led to the forfeit, and give me an indication they deserve the benefit of the doubt.
I don’t think any of those apply here, so I’m not really inclined to suggest a deletion when the debate is in the last day of a 6 month voting period.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Melcharaz // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 5 points to con for arguments and sources.
>Reason for Decision: I wouldn't quote ehrman as he says himself that his writings aren't scholarly.
There are 400000 variants.
arguing the textual variance is not proof worthy of contridiction as according to some translations its is majority text or oldest text. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Bezae
what is the NAME of the father, son and holy spirit? Jesus (YHWH our salvation) christ (anointed one)
the account of judas is the same. one is more lengthy in description of what he did. falling head first is what one does when they pitch forward from a tree. he gave the money to the priests and hanged himself, it became known as the field of blood from 2 points of view. 1, he hanged himself on the tree there and died. 2. his money was used against innocent blood. but notice that the chief priests said it was blood money AFTER he hanged himself. not before.
joseph geneology. (not entirely joseph's) heli most likely gave the linage of mary, not joseph.
Reason for Mod Action> Both arguments and sources are insufficiently explained:
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.
*******************************************************************
It was near impossible to really assess pros sources as there was little relation between the source and where it was used; and a result, some of the claims made appeared unsupported, and poorly referenced. Even if I were to accept all of pros data was supported in sources, there was no knock out blow, or damning data presented that could have damaged cons case: the New Zealand point came close, but as it wasn’t clear to me where this data came from due to poor referencing - I can’t assess that either
Because of this, I have to award sources to con: though to be fair, I probably would have awarded sources on the health outcome sources alone: this was a shining moment of the debate.
What came to mind here when reading pros point - is what if a Sweden was just an awesome country - and it would be more awesome if it full on was capitalist. Con makes that case by linking socials policy to economic freedoms. The whole argument is a bit shaky here for my liking; but in general con is successful in opening a single crack of doubt over the policy in general.
To conclude on this: while I felt pro got the better on key cases; cons argument about death was devastating and never fully resolved by pro, combined with imo con doing better in life expectancy arguments in general basically demolish pros case even were i to award him the win on all other points. Con successfully argues that socialization could potentially make healthcare worse.
In general, pro offers no other case about socialism or socialization in general; so at this point can’t win. Given con wins the only case presented by pro - and himself introduces at least some doubt into the resolution. In my view this is enough to refute the resolution.
Arguments to con,
Conduct: pro started off with insults, and was petulant throughout with comments like “Great a troll who's lost 14 debates, doesn't take debates seriously and believes the world is flat...”, “he/she is intentionally misrepresenting the point”, “By your insane logic with more deregulation equaling....”
I can’t stand this type of behaviour in debates. Being insulting and petulant is for the forums, or private PMs: not in formal debates.
Conduct to cons
Sources:
Con won this mainly on the strength of his sources related to Canada stroke survival, and cancer survival rates which basically undermines pros entire position with hard data.
In terms of cons main case: con argues that the best countries are the ones with most economic freedom. That socialist policies are antithetical to economic freedom. While I can buy the syllogism in general, what I find hard to square with cons points is that there are countries at or higher on cons list of economic freedoms with higher levels of socialization (as pro points out).
Con does not craft a thesis by which he correlates level of socialization against quality of life or economic freedom. That would have been a pretty compelling argument. Instead he appears to point out bad countries and state these are socialist whilst higher countries are not.
Instead con simply appears to try and tie the idea of socialized medicine, or social programs - which is what it appears pro is trying to talk about, with fully socialist countries as if they correlate.
While I can’t accept this on its face - even less so with pro pointing some of this out - it does at least show there so a point at which more socialization is bad; which muddies the resolution a little, as con definitely show there is a limit at which point socialization becomes bad.
Pro gets lost a little on that point; and while he points out the main issues with cons argument; he doesn’t make an argument addressing the line portion of it.
Con followed this up in a way that crystallized a little better. Though implicit, the issue is that socialism in general terms lowers economic freedom - which is bad. With the data con provided it seems the issue he introduces, that some policies benefit some, but not others - and this may lower the overall benefit for everyone, even considering pros rebuttals, is that more socialization could potentially be beneficial, but the broad brush of the resolution is not guaranteed.
Con reiterates his life expectancy argument; excellently pointing out that Americans are much fatter than Germans, and reiterating that they are also much more likely to be victims of violent crime. Con also pointed out that doctors are not trained to give dietary advice, and socialized medicine is not going to fix these issues (nor are there examples where it has)
In terms of deregulation, con largely misses the main thrust of pros point. The issue is undermined that the specific policies not increased socialization are the cause of the costing problems: while cons thesis of why costs are so high may be accurate - he doesn’t account for why more socialized countries have cheaper healthcare. This seems to contradict his point.
Con adds to his point about deaths caused by increased socialization - I’m going to somewhat lump this in with his point about productivity as they are related. Con wraps this point up pretty well here; using his cancer example again, and arguing that while Canada maybe bad - on what basis does pro believe the US would be any better. This is a very good point.
Finally, while con argues that removing causes of higher prices would be more effective than increasing socialization.
Pro rounds up by what seems at this point to be leaping to conclusions. Con pointed out that life expectancy is driven by many competing factors, such as obesity and violent crime: the issue for me, is that pro is simply trying to cast doubt on cons point more than showing in detail how he can correlate healthcare directly to life expectancy.
For nutrition and diet advice; pro largely misses the point I think con was making; that socialized medicine isn’t going to help, given people don’t often follow dietary advice. Intuitively, it rings true - it’s not like people think Big Macs and Cole are healthy.
In terms of affordability; con provides an argument that the issue with affordability was caused by introduction of socialized policy.
Pro argues that deregulation isn’t the answer, and explains that the US is already the most deregulated, pro goes on to argue that issues like obesity already plague countries with socialized medicine, and these countries nonetheless have higher expectancies.
Pro tries to cast doubt on a fairly solid source, by arguing his is also solid, and offering some reasons why cons source may not be accurate or may not apply.
The issue here is that it’s not enough now to throw a bit of doubt on cons point. Pro has to go into more detail here, as cons argument casts doubt on your methodology, by showing how socialized
Medicine can increase deaths in some ways. While I don’t expect a full proof of deaths, I need to see more firm examples than “look at Australia”.
From the cost benefit side, pro does better; pointing out almost all other countries have lower cost healthcare despite being socialized; and that it would make more sense going for systems that work, rather than ones that may not.
The benefit of this argument here, is that pro undermines cons position that the expensive is due to socialization itself: by pointing out other countries don’t have the problem. For this con has to do more to show me that socialization specifically that is the problem rather than the specific policy.
To start off with, my main issues with pros opening is that the resolution is broadly stated; but is opening argument is limited and narrow concerning healthcare.
Frankly there’s so little attempt from pro to talk about the resolution as stated in general, that he does himself no favours here.
I’m going to deal with pros case first, and partly summarize. There are lots of small sub points here, and I won’t address them all, unless I felt that they were compelling enough to move me in one direction or another.
Pro starts off with a fairly good justification of socialized medicine. Pointing out it’s cheaper, universal, that it’s quality could be just as good; pointing out issues in the existing us healthcare systems.
While con accepts some of the potential benefits; con points out there are issues with pro linking life expectancy solely with Healthcare: pointing out issues with obesity also have a part to play and aren’t related to healthcare directly. Cons argument relating to deaths was devestating. Whilst the issue of increased deaths to the uninsured, Con brings up a major potential source of deaths in socialized medicine. This highlights the lack of a big picture view from pro.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Udit // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: pro win
>Reason for Decision: Jenekriuhhhhhhfrgu
Reason for Mod Action> 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.
Saying that, the vote is clearly insufficient. Please review the voting guidelines as outlined in the CoC.
*******************************************************************
Ragnars vote mentioned formatting, but went into much more details, including referencing the decent quality of your Canada source, and how both sides sources affected the debate . Which is why his vote was acceptable.
I am always reluctant to remove such a large vote when most of its okay; I would have preferred for dis to simply clarify the source point rather than removing the whole thing.
RfD pt3
"I find it troubling that literally, every single country in the world with socialized medicine has statistically WAY lower healthcare costs than the US does."
While con correctly points out that are multiple other factors which explain this there is also the more important fact that con in round two outlined a comprehensive explanation as to why the current level of socialization in our healthcare system is harmful to the medical market by facilitating the type of price gouging that causes such inflated prices in the first place. Instead of addressing cons explanation pro appears to simply dismiss it out of hand:
"Also, my opponent's healthcare plan isn’t a very good plan and has never worked before."
As before, even if cons arguments are not sound pro has to show us that they are unsound rather than simply declaring it to be so. Instead of responding to cons explanation of how the current price gouging is caused by the current level of socialization in the healthcare system pro opts for a simple comparison of countries on a list with little to no context.
With pro being so clearly on the defensive for the majority of the debate and con having established several syllogisms that support their premise I am giving points for arguments in this debate to con.
The rest of this RFD can be found in the comments section due to character limitations.
RfD pt2:
The next point for arguments that stands out to me is pros claim that nationalized healthcare systems are inherently more efficient financially than privatized healthcare systems. This claim first appears in pros round one and is reiterated in pros round two however the actual numbers used are different each time. Pro claims to have a source for these statistics but no source is ever actually given. Because the U.S. healthcare system is not currently nationalized it is hard to say how much a nationalized system would cost without performing some sort of in-depth study on the topic. This is what I expected to find when pro said he had sources backing up his claim but since this number appears to be simply pulled out of thin this point is to be disregarded.
The next part of the debate, cons round two and pros round three, repeats the pattern of con presenting a syllogism and pro attempting to counter it. With the exception of the weird little Q&A thing pro did (which I will address in the conduct section of this RFD) pro is primarily on the defensive for the rest of the debate, so the question becomes whether pro successfully counters any of the points made by con.
Regarding this the main points of contention centered around the socialization of healthcare, specifically whether increased healthcare socialization would improve living conditions and whether it would be more financially viable to increase or decrease socialization of healthcare.
In round three pro addresses the affordability point by a simple comparison of the U.S. healthcare costs to more socialized countries:
RfD PT 1
Arguments: The first major hitch with arguments in this debate came in pros round two when he responded to cons round one syllogism. To quote a portion of pros response
"my opponent [cites] statistics to back this poor hypothesis up which don’t need to be debunked since I already proved the hypothesis to be wrong."
It is not immediately clear to me why pro is under the impression that his short list of bullets has 'debunked cons hypothesis' or even what he means about 'cons hypothesis' in the first place. After several re-reads I am forced to assume that the hypothesis being referred to here is the conclusion in cons round one syllogism and that pro has deemed said syllogism faulty due to a perceived flaw in the second premise (if this is an inaccurate interpretation of pros meaning in the above quote I put the blame on a lack of clarity in communication on pros part). Pros main argument for the rest of the round seems to build upon the idea that cons syllogism is faulty but pro never gives a very clear explanation as to why this is the case. Pro simply states the claim that socialistic policies do not damage economic freedom and implies that any policies restricting economic freedom must by definition be fascist rather than socialist in nature. If it is in fact the case that socialistic policies do not actually damage economic freedom then pro needs to back this up by addressing the points raised by con in round one supporting the idea that they do (the last five or so paragraphs in cons round one is what I am referring to). Even if these points made by con are unsound the fact that pro fails to address them means that in a debate setting they are considered valid by default. As for the fascism segment of pros round two this seems like a classic false dichotomy. Pro, the fact that fascism reduces freedom does nothing to show that socialism does not reduce economic freedom.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Discipulus_Didicit // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 6 points to con for arguments, sources and conduct.
>Reason for Decision: see above and comment #344
Reason for Mod Action> Arguments and Conduct were deemed sufficient: sources were deemed insufficient. The voter may repost the vote without source point award by referencing the comments.
The voter appears to base his source award primarily on formatting, rather than the overall impact these sources had on the debate.
The voter must
- Explain, on balance, how each debater's sources impact the debate
- directly evaluate at least one source in particular cited in the debate and explain how it either bolstered or weakened the argument it was used to support
- explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's
*******************************************************************
Bump Missed this one - I may not have time for an RFD
It’s still no at all clear what you’re meaning by free wins
You want a flat earth debate?
In that case, if you want a specific targeted debate on something: say radiometric dating; I maybe able to take some time.
Out of interest, do you believe that? Or just taking the opposing view?
But what exactly about free wins? What are they, what are you arguing for? What would I be arguing against?
What is the debate about?
12.) palaeontology.
Con argues preservation of microscopic soft tissue within T-Rex bones. Cons argument here feels like its leaping to a massive conclusion: that because some microscopic samples contain preserved remnants - that it’s impossible for the samples to be old.
Pro explains that iron nanoparticles can preserve blood in such a way: cons reply somewhat misses the point: pro suggested the ostrich blood was recognizable after two years: its not clear exactly the level of preservation. Cons response was to imply that two years was the limit of preservation - which does not seem to be the case.
The issue here I have with pro; is that pro could have knocked this out of the park by comparing the relatively common preserved state of 10,000 remains with that of dinosaurs: but didn’t.
Pros response is not too compelling on its own here as a result.
13.) the unlikelihood of the Big Bang.
It’s not clear exactly how cons case here points to a young earth. Even if I buy the argument, it just tells me that the Big Bang didn’t happen - not that the earth is young. As a result, I can’t really weigh this part.
10.) Faint young sun.
Con argues that the sun must have been lower powered earlier in its cycle, as there is no evidence of this in the geological record it must not be old. This doesn’t seem to justify his specific contention of the earth being less than 10000 years old, just not as old as claimed - at best.
I found pros counter argument largely irrelevant. How do comets warm the earth? How did collisions make the geological record appear as it does? Pro needs to quantify a plausible scenario that could answer the question - or provide evidence of some wild variations, and their cause.
11.) comets.
Con argues that comets would have all been destroyed if the solar system was not young. Pro talks about the oort cloud and the Kuiper belt but doesn’t explain to me how this explains how the comets we see can be replenished. Even if I accept the Kuiper belt and Oort Cloud as real, pro doesn’t give me a mechanism by which comets can be replenished.
Saying this, both sides are making assumptions. Con assumes that every comment we see has existed in its current orbit since the dawn of the solar system and can’t possibly be perturbed into its current position. Even though pro doesn’t explicitly state that comments can be perturbed over time from their current locations - cons argument doesn’t feel convincing.
8.) Geology. Con argues that the rate of sediment deposits on the sea floor preclude the earth being old.
Pro points out the sediment eroded from land doesn’t all get to the ocean floor, that it is realities on continental slopes, river deltas, etc: and as a result the accumulation in the ocean floor is unreliable.
Cons response largely misses this point, and refers back to his claims that only a limited amount of sediment is removed. While I buy cons point about radiometric dating, the issue is that pros argument is that a limited amount of sediment makes it to the sea floor: and as con isn’t able to quantify how much of the sediment from land gets to the sea floor - this goes to pro.
9.) Rock layers. Con argues rock layers area bent in some areas, and as rock is brittle, it would have snapped, and must not been bent when laid down. Pro points out that applied pressure over time can cause the rock to be bent without breaking. Con objects saying this would make rocks into metaphoric rock; but this leads me to uncertainty ; how much? Pros point is that extra temperature and pressure can allow rocks to bend without breaking: but it is not clear whether this temperature and pressure exceeds a temperature threshold for metaphomorphisis. Con assumes it does - but doesn’t justify it. Secondly, con also appears to dismiss the third point to the case of slumping. The issue for me, is whether to rocks can be soft enough to bend, and then solidify so fast they cannot slump or bent. Pros case here appears reasonable and I was expecting more from con on this point.
Overall, I don’t think con really establishes this point.
4.) Zircons; pro con argues that the dating method has not been validated - this is actually a radiometric dating argument.
5.) Ocr dating. This was used to support a greater than 10,000 year old case. My issue with cons case here is that he explains that ocr can be faulty easily - but doesn’t imo justify why he can be sure every date greater than 10,000 years old is invalid.
6.) impact craters. Pro argues the number of craters is large and there is no reason to be. Con presents a large number of speculative reasons why this could be so. This includes last Tuesdayism, and that bombarent occurred at some point in the last 6000 years. Pro really points out how this is all speculative with no supporting data
7.) Lunar recession. Pro argues that lunar recession points to an old earth, based upon the correlation between tides and the rate of lunar recession. pro argues lunar recession occurred in the past is not compatible with a young earth. Cons response was that the calculation makes an assumption and is indicative of a billion year old earth.
Pro provides a counter to cons objections; that the varves have shown to be accurate to a fairly high precision, that the calculations when accurately performed show up to a 4,5bn year recession.
Pro points out that con contradicts whether the moons recession has sped up or slowed down.
My issues with cons response, is that it seems tenuous; it is an argument that the measurement maybe inaccurate, imo pro needs to square the evidence with a young earth; I don’t think he did this on this points
2.) Pangea
Pro makes an argument about how the existence of pangea proves the earth is billions of years old. The issue is that pro is arguing based upon continental drift not speeding up substantially; and that the timeframe of Pangea is billions of years.
Pro does better here, I think pro pointing out the mechanics and necessary heat and friction generated by continents and rocks moving as fast as necessary appears a good reason to discount cons explanation: as con appears to concede the existence of Pangea, this leads to a solid plank against cons position - though imo, pro did not do enough to show the billions of years element with this point.
3.) Tree rings/ Ice cores
There were a number of small points pro raised here relating to wats in which we know the earth isn’t 6000 years old:
Trees and ice layers go back further than 6000 years. Con points out some issues with interpretation, and there can be multiple layers/rings, and possibility of error: though it is not clear how this potential speculative error could lead to the actual error, con leaves (heh) this up in the air. For trees con argues that there is circular dating going on. Pro points out that carbon dating is used to confirm ages ; it is not fully clear what pros reputation to the argument that tree rings are calibrating carbon dating, so it’s hard for me to determine who is correct.
I can’t really use pros tree example here; as it’s not strictly pertinent to the exact resolution. If Noah’s flood didn’t happen, the earth could be 6000 years old and those trees 4500.
The ice cores argument I have to say goes to con. Pro says that the ice cores go back 740,000, con argues that layers may not be annual; pro says they aren’t measuring annual layers but isn’t entirely clear the reason the 740,000 number is valid. This isn’t to say it isn’t, but pros response didn’t explain how variability of weather and climate are accounted for in the ice; and for that reason, I can’t accept it.
This debate is especially hard given that I have a substantial background in these debates. It means I know who is doing what, what points are being missed, etc.
I’m going to give a wide range for ties because of this.
Also note I’m really not a fan of going into an external text, or having weird interleaved rounds. This would be much better as a back and forth imo, and much better on one of these topicsz
1.) Radiometric dating.
Pro argues radiometric dating shows the age of the earth is more than 6000 years. Con argues that this dating method relies on a set of assumptions (constant decay, etc), and presents a couple of notional examples as to why we can’t trust it (argon-40 and helium in uranium).
The contamination aspect, and using examples of bad dates help throw doubt onto pros position. While pro has an answer for a couple of these points, pro doesn’t answer the key issue about constancy of radiation - nor explain why we can be fairly certain the rate has not changed and our dates are valid. In this case I find myself leaning con.