Ramshutu

One additional forfeit

Forefeiture

Forfeit - case uncontested

Implied concession

Full forfeit

Full forfeit.

forfeiture

Full forfeit

Full forfeit

Full forfeit

Full Forfeit

https://www.debateart.com/debates/3281/comment-links/40420

Full forfeit.

Full forfeit.

RFd in comments

https://www.debateart.com/debates/3230/comment-links/40137

Concession

RFd in comments:

https://www.debateart.com/debates/3202/comment-links/40130

Full forfeit

Firstly; this ended in a concession - so con gets the points.

I’ll cover the remainder more briefly for the purposes of information: The main argument revolves around semantics ; specifically the nature of evil and incoherence in the resolution.

I hate these type of arguments; as It gives the impression that the argument purposefully deviates from what one side intends, and as such is a bad faith lawyering to win a debate - however as the resolution seems unclear; I’d give con the benefit of the doubt. Indeed pro kinda shot himself in the foot with the resolution

Concession

eyedea and abilities-exhausted love.
Quite liked the piano hook here, and a little anti-capitalism rant in there. I found it pretty snazzy, and it’s the type of lyrics that resonates a little better for me, I would listen to this one again - 9/10.

Daylight - Aesop rock. I liked the tune, didn’t care for the rap; while I don’t mind fast, this wasn’t understandable for me. 6/10

Funksoobiest: I love the hook. I won’t lie; a good hook is going to win me over much more than any lyrical skill, that’s what engages me. While it sounds like Christopher walken is rapping - I felt the rap really worked well with the hook, with a pretty catchy refrain. I’m not lost in thought when I give this one another 9/10 on the grounds that this is the type of rap I could listen to again.

Word burglar - sneaky neighbours: great hook again, loved the lyrics - this is really the only one so far that the lyrics and delivery stood out for me, as in that I thought the lyrics really popped (as opposed to the first one which were good). This one made me lol. Thus 10/10

Jedi mind tricks: the hook was good, the actual rap kinda blended in with all the others; though I found the more bouncy beat driven fly rap to be a little easier in the ear than the others. Not a patch on the others here though: 7/10

Immortal technique point of no return.
The 8bit synth string start made me lol a little. Felt very out of place; but the low piano notes made up for a little. I like the lyric complexity, but the content is immediately forgettable: 7/10

Sa-roc - forever. I didn’t hate this one, but nothing about it stood out. It’s okay, but to me this is the type of stuff I imagine hearing in Old Navy, of outlet stores. 5/10

Apathy I keep in: I liked this one better, it had a decent hook, and a decent refrain; I can bob my head along to this one: 9/10

k-rino: never loved you. Another fairly boilerplate generic rap. While the hook was a bit better than sa-roc, it doesn’t stand out in any substantial way. After listening to this one; if you played me a bunch of generic sounding rap songs, and slipped this one in the middle: I wouldn’t recognize it. 6/10

Jedi mind tricks: better, great hook here, otherwise the rap is about the same as the JMT track from BPD - as a result I have to give this 7.5/10 (it’s not worth an 8, but is better than BPDs)

BPD total: 41/50
Rm total: 34.5/50

Winner: BPD

Full forfeit - shame, because I felt the kritik was excellent, and I would have loved to see this play out in an argument.

For future not; I can’t stand debates on truisms, so this argument correctly expressed would easily win such debates for me; and would lead to me awarding conduct too.

Full Forfeit

Full forfeit

The two most common errors in debates on this site at least, is to lose track of the resolution, and to forget to meet your burden of proof. Both were issues in the debate

For this resolution, both sides should show the fissile record is indicative of their respective explanation. It’s actually a fairly well balanced resolution.

Cons affirmative case appears to revolve around attempting to prove ID, to me thats irrelevant, and way too much ink was dedicated to this dead end; were I to accept it all as given, it doesn’t prove his aspect of the resolution. Pro allowed himself to be pulled down this path too.

Con doesn’t really provide an explanation of how The fossil record is consistent with ID (only that it is not consistent with evolution) con seemed only to imply that if evolution is false, ID must be true; which isn’t sufficient. In the absence of that; con cannot meet his burden of proof. And the best he can hope for is a tie.

Pro affirmative:

While pro attempts to show evolution matches up with the fossil record, only two examples are used. I felt the constructive was better suited to explain evolution, what it would produce; then drop a bomb of fossil data - and there is a lot of it. Without this, you’re talking bits and pieces and not the fossil record as a whole. That’s the part that is unclear from pro: how is it the fossil record indicates evolution as a whole, when I only have two examples?

Horses: pro makes a reasonable summary that evolution produces changes over time - and that horse fossils show changes over time specifically stay apparatus, and pre orbital fossae. That seems pretty open and shut - con should be arguing that they don’t show change over time, or showing some aspect about them aren’t indicative of ancestry- but they don’t. Con just asks a set of questions he even suggests don’t need to be answered - if con has answered any of those questions in a way that was detrimental to pros argument: or demonstrated why what was presented cannot be presumed to indicate evolution without an answer to at least one: this would have been different - but just questioning whether the evidence should be accepted is not enough for me - you have to do more. I find this approach to be a bit on the shitty side - as it tends to force an opponent into writing a whole bunch of stuff based on potential, rather than demonstrated issues.

So on this basis, I must grant that con has shown horse fossils are indicative of evolution.

Tiktaliik:
Pro argues that the finding lobe finned fish in one strata, and tetrapods in another allows a prediction of an indeterminate form in another; in a specific geographic location - a testable prediction - which was found to be true. This would be indicative of evolution.

The prediction part is contested by con - with another question. Pros source indicates this was a prediction - con gives me no reason why I shouldn’t believe this source - not even a bad one, which I would accept if uncontested.

Con does, however, do just enough with the challenging of date to question chronological progression; pro does point that exact chronology is unknown; and can be flexible but IMO doesn’t do enough here for me to accept as strong evidence. It’s not a total loss; in that con doesn’t explain why I shouldn’t accept this as a valid prediction of evolution at the time; but not enough on its own.

Cambrian explosion. So this one is a bit of a mess. There’s a lot of back and forth on gradualism, vs punctuated equilibrium - but bearing in mind the resolution - pro to me has to explain why the Cambrian explosion is indicative of evolution, there were hints - talking a little about creatures before or after; but were only two examples. The issue with it becomes while this point wouldn’t have been enough to disprove pros argument; the rebuttal is not enough to support it.

So in this respect pro hasn’t done enough to meet his burden here either.

As neither side has met their burden, I can only establish this as a draw.

From pros side; the hole that he dug himself was establishing a broad resolution, and attempting to justify it with narrow examples: I’m left with basically some information about horses to try and justify why fossil record justifies evolution - just not enough; why pro may have scraped through in the last round, the pseudo-forfeit prevented that.

The entire debate by pro is riddled with constant obnoxious profanity targeted at con - almost the entirety of pros second round was just to belittle and insult con.

The debate description insults con, and effectively means the majority of this debate was targeted at attacking and/or swearing at con.

This is simply ridiculous toxic, and clearly warrants conduct deduction.

Conduct to con.

S&G - I don’t often penalize here; but the obsessing miscapitalization and ridiculous spelling errors riddled throughout pros case massively detracts from the readability of his argument.

The grammar is utterly attrocious: “classical is more relaxing and calm if you pot it in your ears but rap can be bad 4 youtr ears.

2 r ap is too focusedd on lyrics which make it sound more badly”

I can barely discern the action point here.

In the second runs, poor paragraphing, walls of haha, and all caps tirades render the presentation of the post so bad, it substantially interferes with my ability to read his debate rounds.

Con does not at any point stuffer from this grammatical impotence; and sg S&G must go to con.

Arguments: con puts up a standard (bad rep is good, lyrics are good), and establishes that rap meets that standard more than classical especially in the context of America.

Pro really just admonishes rap for being lyric focused and promotes violence. Notwithstanding that cons argument isn’t that strong, it still turns pros position around, and counts as both affirmative and rebuttal - meaning that due to pros lack of rebuttal - a minimal burden of proof has been met by con.

Arguments to con.

Weighting: I’m going to treat this like a doorway sales pitch, ranking each criteria out of 10, IE:

Believability. (FSM - 1, to atheism at 10)
Cohesiveness. (Christianity at 1, the good place at 10)
Interestingness (Christianity at 1, bill and Ted at 10)

Monkey:

Fictionalness: RM tried to claim this was not a fictional religion. While I’m sure it shares some philosophical similarities - I can’t say that I agree. And it would be particularly crappy of me to award a debate because it has some nihilism in there. It’s certainly a unique jumble, rm himself says: “it's virtually impossible to not resemble anything at all”

Rules state the religion must be fictional - but doesn’t specify that how fictional it is should factor in to the voting decision; so as long as neither side outs forth a real or repackaged religion - I don’t see an issue.

Believability: I like the idea of the idea purging religions, and the concept that AI is used to confirm or disprove the religion - the origin story In general. I’m not sold on the principle that what you came with would be validated entirely; but there’s nothing otherwise super-out-there; it’s all sort of new-agey with focus on growth, responsibility
, suffering being necessary - etc. The best part of it, IMO was the idea that the gods f***ed off after creation and left us to it. I did like the idea that suffering is necessary to promote growth, that’s kinda neatly dovetailed into what the universe is.

In terms of believability objections - RM didn’t really raise any issues with believability (what about this appears silly, or unbelievable), so I have to weigh as is: 8/10

Cohesiveness:
The idea actually sounds pretty cohesive, it all kinda seems to make sense with respect to itself. Two gods introduced spirit as an agent of change into the universe then f***ed off; motivations seemed reasonable, goal sounds reasonable, with the 20 minutes or so I spent re-reading it, I didn’t see any major flaws. So it seems pretty reasonable.

RM questioned whether it made sense; but seemed to be talking about weird interpretations: arguing as if the religion promoted suicide or suffering - which I’m struggling to understand the logic of. It seems more the case of weakness and suffering as a necessity to promote growth more than anything else, and about embracing them to achieve it.

Given that, I’d rate cohesiveness at an 7; it would score higher if it were more complex.

Interestingness:

Started with cool AI; faded out as a bit new agey. I think this is where it fell down a bit. Some interesting concepts on balance, but a bit bland overall: 4.

Rm didn’t question interestness other than to note similarities with philosophical concepts

Total score: 19/30

RM:

Believability:

So RM goes with a pantheon, there’s descriptions of the pantheon, and interactions and motivations with each other; but it doesn’t really have a framework for existence as monkey does: ie, we are here because the 7 gods were bored, and we’re there for their amusement.

While Monkey ties in stuff about how the world works and the religions origins (AI); RMs approach leaves the relationship between the gods and mortals pretty open ended. All together the religion appears thrown together without the same level of underpinning with a central theological theme. Together with statements about morality that extreme evil is not necessarily against the religion, drops the believability through the floor.

And I mean qveroo as the genderqueer god and borem as the god of patience? Lol.

Believability: 3/10

Cohesiveness:

I can rely on monkey here for the run down. The gods are both gods and demigods: they both have emotions and don’t really have emotions.

The central tenant appears to be not to stand in the way of individualistic expression - yet have heated disagreements and crave unity between them indicating they are codependent.

In fact, there is little said at all about overall goals of the religion or the gods: and frankly what is said appears to sort of contradict itself a little. So in this respect I can’t really score cohesiveness highly.

Cohesiveness: 2/10

Interestingness:

Weird pantheons are always interesting. I like the description of borem, and the idea that they’re outside the simulation is somewhat unique. The concept is interesting, but would like to have it a bit more thrashed out with a basic creation story, or angled in a way that explains their reality. Without that, it feels wrong scoring it higher than monkey. While the concept is more promising, the lack of fleshing out balances it out.

Interestingness: 6/10

Total: 11/30

Arguments to monkey (pro)

RFd in comments: https://www.debateart.com/debates/3226/comment-links/40026

Full forfeit

Both sides full forfeit

Con makes this vote easy for me. The rules indicate BoP is shared, meaning that Con is required to demonstrate why FPTP should be maintained. In general, they should offer a standard by which I can judge FPTP against alternates; then show FPTP is better.

Con doesn’t so this: but instead frames the debate by suggesting that if any example of FPTP that is better than alternatives invalidates the resolution.

Pro however, made a substantial argument in R1 about how the resolution is generalized, offering me a standard by which I can measure (function of voting); and justifying why this is an “on balance” resolution - to which con had no objection or argument. As a result; with no clear standard or justification from con - even if I accept everything con said as true - cannot affirm the resolution.

The only real critique relevant to AV at this point is an issue of complexity, while I can buy this; con doesn’t frame this as a weighted argument. I can’t tell whether the complexity aspect is worth keeping FPTP for - and one that is well responded to by pro - explaining there is a minimal difference in complexity.

By this same standard - pro offered the specific issues with FPTP, and reasons why alternatives are better. Con did not actually offer a rebuttal to this, effectively putting all his eggs into one basket.

Given this, as con argument doesn’t meet his burden; And as there was no rebuttal of pros standard in R1, these arguments stand and pro thus meets his burden.

Arguments to pro - all other points tied..

Full forfeit

Full forfeit

RFD in comments:

https://www.debateart.com/debates/3223/comment-links/39995

Full forfeit

Full forfeit.

This debate is technically a full forfeit on both sides. However, I am awarding this one to con due to the only one offering a constructive support of his position.

Pro mentions Soddam and Gomorrah, Noah and Ham, Corinthians and Timothy ; but simply quotes the Bible and asserts it affirms his position.

On Provides a counter to each of these positions (that soddam and Gomorrah was about rape - not homosexuality), that Noah and ham doesn’t specify any immoral acts, Corinthians refers not to homosexuality but to the Roman habit of getting so drunk that heterosexuals give info lust, and that Timothy was referring to soft, iffeminate men.

As con then adds a constructive argument concerning Davis and Jonathon having an approved homosexual relationship; Con having rebutted his opponent, I must give this to con on arguments alone; even with all the full forfeits on both sides given that pro has the rounds to offer further justification.

Both sides forfeited, but only one made an argument.

Full forfeit

Full forfeit

Full forfeit

Full forfeit

Full forfeit

Full forfeit

Full forfeit

Full forfeit (and sort of a concession)

Full forfeit

Full forfeit

Full forfeit

Full forfeit