Ramshutu

So let’s start off at the beginning.

Round 1: pro.

While pro established a few basics, his only contrast is that ST was primitive in his thinking.

Pro argues the future looking attitude of JF is respect worthy.

The remainder was not comparative and so was not assessed.

Round 1: con.

So far - half way through cons round 1 and so far, cons contrasting points are that ST was well respected - much more respected and looked up to by his peers and as a percentage of people.

Con also discusses the effect SThas on the world, military strategy and how he informed the geopolitics of the time.

Con argues the achievements of ST in terms of logic and approach to problems (especially in war are amazing)

The remainder was not comparative so was not assessed.

Round 2: pro.

Pro spent this time telling us how good JF, that he tried to end war. He points out ST was short sites, and JF was long sited.

Pro argues that ST didn’t use his knowledge for good, whereas ST did.

The remainder was not comparative and so was not assessed.

Round 2: con

Con argues Jf should values logic of people - and RBE is indicative of this - harming individuals for the purpose of selflessness to help society.

Con argues ST had a major actual impact on a real country - China .

Con argues ST came up with essentially game theory.

Con argues JF was a failure at everything. ST was not

The remainder was not comparative and so was not assessed.

Pro round 4:
Con round 4:

Shit show. No comparative analysis.

Arguments: pro. I felt achievements indicated by con in terms of impact to China, achievements in general and success outweighed the negligible comparative analysis provided by pro.

Make no mistake - this was a shit show of a debate, terrible on both sides from the point of view of waffling insanity, and ignorance of the resolution. If this had not been against the worst debater on the side, arguments would likely have gone the other way.

Conduct:

“Please PM me on CD and admit to lying in this debate, because if you don't then I will be forced to conclude that you are LITERALLY retarded for believing this shit.”

“Yes and the fundamental thing that you like to do most of all is molest children, now stop lying you fucking piece of shit”

Random petulant insults and profanity littered this debate. Conduct to conZ

I am not sure how to score this debate.

While the debate appear to be “according to the bible, is fatalism valid”. Yet pro appears to be arguing external to the bible, and whether the doctrine is misunderstood or disliked.

I’m that vein, I feel that pro clearly took down the notion of fatalism as valid that pro was trying to argue for in the opening round.

That being said, I view the resolution as king, and in the absence of descriptions, my initial reaction is that this was a debate about whether fatalism is a valid biblical belief- not a valid belief.

Saying this, when viewed as the resolution - I don’t think that pro provided warrant to support his position. Simply linking scripture on its own, without argument or context is not sufficient on its own to fulfill pros burden of proof.

As a result, I feel the only real way to come down on this is a tie.

RfD in comments. https://www.debateart.com/debates/577?open_tab=comments&comments_page=1&comment_number=19

Apologies for the delay:

Pros arguments revolve around two points:

- That morality and moral behaviour is simply a feeling and is not objective.
- Pro argues that the social and social norms constructs around morality exist to prevent harm to society.

Pro drops this Gem:

“Even though morality is subjective, a person can still feel wronged and there still can be socially acceptable standards”

Pro nails the response - by pointing out that a subjective morality that can be justified objectively through the law - is not subjective. That destroys pros primary defence for morality being subjective - his explanation of why we all seem to agree on most moral decisions.

Arguments to con.

Conduct to con for the forfeit.

Pro offered a definition of socialism, and con offered his definition which seemed broadly in lines

As pro doesn’t challenge either his or his opponents definition - it appears con negates the resolution by showing he understands what it means.

Now, pro goes on to argue that con is talking about big bad government. This may be the case, but con added “typically” as a caveat to his position, which didn’t appear to necessitate government intervention.

As pro offers no additional definitions, nor really contests cons definition other than this - con successfully negates the resolution. Arguments to con.

Conduct to con for pros forfeit.

T1 has better insults, RMs felt a bit forced and stilted. I particularly liked T1 poop against the wall, with RMs, the insults seemed to mainly fall flat as he was trying to force the rhyme. The rhymes themselves were fairly simple on both sides, though I felt RM was more predictable - he also had a few more fizzles than T1 where the rhyme just didn’t hit home. Though both sides had their fair share

With flow - while RM went for a more complex flow, the rhyming simplicity and bad insults undermined it, and thus I felt it was easier to scan and pick up the pulse of T1.

As a result, I think T1 got this.

1.) Medication. Pro claims that the existence of natural medicine proves Gods existence. To support this pro appears to make an argument from incredulity - how else but God? which is not a particularly strong on its face - but he asks a relevant question that, in part, provides at least a weak justification for incredulityz

Con questions how pro can determine that natural healing properties of organisms do not occur naturally. Now: while pro has overall burden of proof - on this point it’s much harder for pro to prove there is no method by which complex healing chemicals cannot arise naturally.

I feel con has some burden of explaining why medicine can originate naturally, or least undermine the incredulity - he doesn’t have to go in depth, but there is some need to rebut.

Con doesn’t do this.

With his forfeits, and pros anti-evolution “argument”, which was unrefuted - I have to conclude that organisms were created

However, whilst con doesn’t provide justification to believe these plants do not need a creator - he does argue that it need not necessarily the Christian God. This salvages this point a little - and means this point alone can’t win the debate for pro.

This point is largely to pro - but doesn’t prove the resolution. Resolution requires one or more additional points.

2.) The Bible said not to drink while pregnant.

Pro sets up an argument that claims we only knew about issues with alcohol and pregnancy in the 1970s - and the bible said not to drink while pregnant.

This doesn’t seem a strong point, but it seems valid on its face.

Con, however points out that there were suspicions up to 384 BC, meaning that it’s. Not necessarily unreasonable for someone to make this claim.

Secondly, con points out it’s not necessarily the case that it meant that alcohol would be harmful - only that it would make the boy unclean.

Both of these are good rebuttals to the point, and pro doesn’t really address them at all other than to assert his position is obvious. This goes to con.

3.) Depression. Pro makes an argument, then seems to ignore the rebuttal.

The charge is much like the alcohol - that the writers bible knew about depression, and this shows the bible is accurate.

As before, con argues that this example could well have been common knowledge at the time - which fits as pro doesn’t show that it is unreasonable for people at the time to have already figured this out.

There seems to be no further rebuttal. So this goes to con.

4.) floating earth

There seems to be no argument as to why the bible being correct on basic points is proof of God - Pro needs to show that the only way the bible would have included this information is by divine revelation.

Con frames up this argument rather well by basically asking pro to justify why this knowledge relies on revelation - thus God.

Pro didn’t do this, so this point goes to con.

5.) revelation.

The end times prophecy seems largely irrelevant to the resolution. I think the world needs to end to determine whether the end times prophecy is accurate.

6.) haunted house. This is tenuous at best - pro mostly relies on anecdotal evidence - so I don’t feel pro provides warrant here.

7.) mitochondrial eve.

Pro argues that mitochondrial eve and the age of the earth are the same. Con argues this doesn’t support the resolution as even if that is true it only refutes our current understanding of origins - but doesn’t necessarily mean that God exists as claimed.

Summary: con wasn’t harmed by the two forfeits - as pro didn’t really address the issue he raised with cons point. Pros arguments were mostly without warrant - and con merely pointed out the reason why.

The exception is the medicinal plants - pro gave reasons to be incredulous - whereas con didn’t feel he needed to argue that these plants could have originated naturally. I don’t agree, while con didn’t need to do a great deal, he needed to do more: however he saved himself by pointing out that any God - not just the Christian God could do this.

As a result, con clearly wins this debate.

Conduct to pro for the forfeited rounds.

Pro again simply asks the incredulous question - how could such chemicals occur naturally, and cure diseases.

Cons rebuttal again, is to point out that pro is manic a hasty generalization, and to point out that pro can’t substantiated complexity requires

The primary contention here, by pro, is that everything needs something else to exist - thus God is needed to explain the existence of anything.

Con agrees - and asks pro to justify why everything else needs a cause but God does not.

The justification pro gives is that everything is material and God is not. On its face this smacks of text book special pleading, and as the debate wears on, con hammers home this point in a round about way.

Con basically asks why the immaterial is not subject to cause and effect, what is something that is immaterial anyways, and whether pro can show the immaterial exists.

What wins this for con - is that through his line of questioning regarding the material, he makes pros argument seem an arbitrary assertion: he asks pro to justify the exemptions he assigns to God through the invocation of the immaterial.

Pro didn’t recover, and could only really assert that his exemptions are valid.

There were a few ancillary points con made (God outside reality / how can non physical be conscious), but I have not assessed these as the main argument is enough to win on its own.

Arguments to con.

All other points tied.

This argument is which is better for you, Alcohol or Marajuana. It isn’t whether Marajuana is bad, or alcohol is bad, so for me the winner is the person who clearly contrasts the impacts from the drugs in questions. Saying one has a negative impact on its own is irrelevant.

Importantly, I as I think con will have a much tougher time proving this, I’m not going to assume that the burden of proof leans a little towards pro here - especially as he’s the instigator.

1.) Contention 1: Con argues that Marajuana is legally worse for you. While this is a legal consequence, I would have accepted this as a weak harm. Pro counters this is an effect of the law not marijuana - and con doesn’t appear to reply. Con even appears to argue pro didn’t touch it. As a result, I have to give this point to pro.

2.) Contention 2: buried under a seemingly irrelevant title is some points here.

A lung transplant kills the donor, a liver transplant may not, and the liver can recover much easier than Lungs.

Pro drops both these points. Imo while they are comparative - con (or pro for that matter) does not do very well in the contrast he could have pointed out incidence rates of lung and liver diseases, or more specific data on transplants. But as he doesn’t, it weakens his position a little. Nonetheless con mostly establishes a minor contrasting point here.

Harms underage brain development more than alcohol, and harms IQ. Pro doesn’t contrast with alcohol here other than saying it’s better - and pro additionally points out that alcohol can cause brain damage in young people too.

Both sides claim the other harms the brain of the the young, but neither side really provides any decent contrast between the two: by this means comparing and contrasting the relative effects.

3.) Contention 3.

I can’t even figure out what this means.

“it's much easier on you, psychologically and psychosomatically, to both know it was rape and prove it was rape if you were drunk as opposed to high”

What is this supposed to mean? That it’s easier to know and prove it was rape if you’re drunk? I think that’s what you mean - it’s another example of pro getting in his own way.

The first paragraph appears irrelevant and unnecessary.

The second appears to assert that if you’re high it’s harder to prove that you were rapes because of the effects whereas if you’re drunk - it’s clear.

This seems a prima facia absurd argument. Pro points this out, and asks for just one example. Cons response was basically to cite a link that basically states the links are unclear.

I can’t accept this argument as a result on its face. It’s too tenuous and con provides no warrant - even in the face of pro challenging it.

Pro didn’t offer any argument to affirm his position. He simply relied on trying to refute con.

In both pros opening round - and cons second round, both sides rely mostly on quotes from sources. I am going to summarily dismiss ALL of pros arguments where he just posts a long quote and no argument. This is a debate, not “see who can post the best quote”. If you use a quote, you have to explain its relevance, how it applies and what it means.

So after this, con tentatively establishes a single point. A couple of points have little in the way of actual comparisons - the mental health impact is particularly hard - as neither side provides a definitive way of contrasting the two drugs.

So out of this, if BoP was on Con - I Would award this to pro, if shared, or slightly on pro, it goes to con.

Arguments to con.

Sources: both sides use sources poorly in places, well in others. So this is a tie.

Conduct: pro degenerates into name calling, which normally gets pinged with Conduct. However, cons wall of quotes in round two was particularly egregious, and quite frankly lazy. If con did this over two rounds - I would have awarded pro conduct - instead I have decided to award this as a tie.

This was actually fairly good!

So, I don’t think there was any contest of pros primary points that Yoda was the better fighter. There were two exceptions; that Yoda was also disarmed (which I must accept), and that Yoda fled the fight. I feel that pros reasoning about why fleeing a flight is okay was light, though the understanding that he couldn’t deal with sidious and the empire by himself was good enough to make me consider the final retreat as not part of the battle.

I also think there was really any contest that Yodas mission was a failure. Con portrays the failure of the duel based on the outcome and stated goals, pro makes it clear he was talking about the physical fight itself and who got the better of who.

So this comes down to framing, what consistutes a win of a duel, key for me, is that I feel it is inherent in the resolution that pro is not talking about full victory, but a technical victory. Pro argues that a technical win, is fighting better overall. Con argues it is falling short of killing the opponent.

At this point, I could either go with “fully bests opponent”, which would award the debate to con, or “boxing win on points”, which would award the debate to pro.

I could go either way, so that indicates to me that the debate is a deW. So I’m going to score this even.

Resolution is king; both sides needed to do more to ground what a technical win would look like: and contrast it with their opponent.

For example, in my view pro needed to argue something like: “a win would be a kill or a knock out; but in context a technical win is like winning on points in boxing”, and con along the lines of “it’s a duel to a the death, a technical win should be when one side clearly bests the other short of a kill”, and then go onto refute or construct based on the baselines each set themselves. Without this, both sides simply argued the other side didn’t match their criteria, without selling me on their criteria.

All points tied.

This debate is clearly a rip off troll of another debate of a similar opposite topic, it appears clearly written to God’s the opponent, as is the multiple examples of pro belittling his opponent “Nice mindless faith based asserting there buddy” and repeated petulance in favor of arguments. The debate title and content alone is good cause to award conduct points. If pro wants to make shitty parody debates, they have no place here. While con forfeited the final round, pros behaviour is extraordinarily bad, and so should be penalized.

Arguments: I will assume the burden of proof is shared on all points, other than brainwashing - which is kind of off the default position.

Brainwashing: pro offers no argument at all on this point. He loses on this point.

Superstition: pro offers no argument at all on this point. Con made a broad argument relating to faith - specifically that religion is based on the implicit interpretation of the universe, like seeing gravity or logic. Pro mostly responded saying that there is evidence for logic, and that gravity isn’t the same - but offered no warrant. I would give pro the benefit of the doubt, has he not repeatedly admonished con for doing the same thing. Given that con attempted to explain the point whereas pro mostly just made an initial assertion without warrant and then ran, I would classify this as going ever so slightly in cons direction. So pro loses this point too.

Truth: pro asserted that the bible is false, and gave a generic peace of information. Pro argues that there is factual basis and prophecies were fufilled. As pro offered the only factual support for his claim on this count: I pro edges this point.

Reason: pro offers no examples, but makes a number of assertions, con does the same here. I’m looking for a clearly poorly reasoned basis for Christianity, rather than picking apart a specific side point. Neither really argued this point other than trading assertions about faith being correct, or there being something illogical about the bible. I would score this point as a tie.

Pro doesn’t win on all points - even if I share the burden on all points. As a result, the resolution is negated and con wins arguments.

Con won in definitions - pro intended the debate to be unwinnable by arguing gender means sex, con argued gender means the general interpretation of gender as defined.

On this count, despite pros rant that he doesn’t care what gender means according time the dictionary, he did little to change the debate away from pros characterization. As a result, con characterized gender to his advantage and wins the debate.

The two ancilliary points to raise based on pros argument: are that gender is a social construct, so no one can truly have it. This smacks of grasping at straws here - and pro refutes himself twice: first by arguing “no one has gender - other than....” the other than is important as it means that pro agrees that there is a way for God to have Gender; second by admitting that we monkeys appear Gods gender. Both would appear to negate the resolution in the way pro presents gender.

Pro also shoots himself in the foot by admitting that the meaning of the word has been redefined - implying the meaning has changed.

Pro has to offer a clear definition of gender, and a clear argument for why God - namely RMs God doesn’t have a Gender. Pro doesn’t really do either, which means con wins this.

Sources:

Con wins on sources here, as he hammers down pros argument with each successive definition. These sources build his definition into a broad and authoritative definition that was next to impossible for pro to challenge. Pro was playing catch up, with him being unable to produce any sources that appeared to bolster his warrant. Whilst con offered multiple dictarkomary definitions, pros only relevant argument that utilized a source was his definition of gender incorporating sex, which required a broad and overtly favourable interpretation to mean what pro claims it does - as a result, con hardened his position immensely with sources, and pros sources made almost no difference to hisnwarrant.

Sources to con

Hah!

Con destroyed pro both in debate style - by pointing out that pro has not provided any support for his position. The fact that he did this whilst coming with a pretty damn decent rap that itself was better than cons based upon insults, and flow (Did I say shittin’? Well that lack precision; this wannabe competitor is lickin’ what I sharted - genius!) - automatically awards him the win.

1.) Pro offers no comparison of the whole album vs all Eminems other albums, aside from the opening track argument - pro offers no objective reason why the whole album sucks compared to the others - and merely presents some subjective assertions to argue its bad. Cons counter argument in round 2, presented just as subjective a reason as to why encore was a good album that actually appeared coherent.

2.) pro won this in round 2 by providing a genuine breakdown of why Evil deeds was good, and breaks down the album - this casts enough doubt on the claim that it is the worst to clearly meet pros burden and win arguments.

Arguments to con.

Conduct:

Pro:
“I am going to slap your labial pussy lips until you agree.”
“Yes and according to you Nicki Minaj, Hopsin and Chris Webby are better rappers than Eminem so we know what your opinion is worth.”
“RM wrote this which he can testify to if he is not an insanely dishonest prick.”

Pro is rude, profane, and disrespectful throughout. Con was not. There is no place for this behaviour here.

Conduct to con.

This one is easy for me.

Pre-fiat Ks require substantial burden in my view - con needs to provide not just compelling reason why the whole concept of laws are bad, but also has to show me why I shouldn’t operate under the assumption that laws are okay for the purposes of this debate.

Con does neither, and tentatively offers a minor defence of his kritik.

As a result, as pro offers an argument - cons K is discounted - arguments to pro.

Conduct:

Pro clearly wanted a genuine debate, con had no intention of providing one: the k, and the final round “Hole in a bucket, really wanna fuck it.” makes it clear that pro was arguing in good faith whilst Con was not. As a result, this behaviour was unreasonable and antisocial and warrants conduct mark down against con.

Conduct to pro.

Arguments:

Arbitrary - pro argues that atheism is arbitrary because it relies on man.

That seems nonsensical on its face - as con points out in the definition of arbitrary - con points out that there are limited numbers of types of atheism and they are not changeable on a whim.

Pro in R2 equates illogical with arbitrary - which con points out - and dismisses the argument from illogical as irrelevant.

Pro in R3 that atheism is morality relative, and thus arbitrary. Con separates the morality part from atheism - I didn’t think this was as good as the rest of this portion.

Pro argues that to not be arbitrary, it requires one person setting the standard. This conflicts with definition of arbitrary presented - so I can’t accepted it. Moreover - con points out that atheism is not arbitrary as it is based on objective evidence rather than subjective opinion.

Boom, headshot.

Pro refutes none of cons argument here - con proves atheism is not arbitrary.

Inconsistent/morality

Pro argues that atheism is inconsistent because of its moral approach. Con points out it’s not a moral system. This was dropped by pro.

Pro argues atheists get their morality from the bible. Con asks pro to prove biblical morality was the source of all morality rather than stemming from innante justice - I liked this argument.

Pro argues atheists are inconsistent - but doesn’t seem to tie this to atheism - and as such I don’t feel it’s relevant.

Given the lack of rebuttal: atheism is not inconsistent.

Borrowed from the bible.

Morality - as covered - cannot be said to be borrowed as com pointed out. Pro needs to argue how pro knows the bible is a cause of morality, rather than written as a symptom of innate justice im humans.

With laws of logic - pro again confuses atheism with atheists and while con is a bit laboured in the rebuttal effectively says atheism doesn’t promote the biblical materialism directly, and atheists can believe in other scenarios.

That is the final rebuttal - con nominally disproved all three contentions. Any one of which would have defeated the resolution.

All other points tied.

Welcome to both of you! I will wrap a little feedback into my RfD for your benefit. I will include (FB) when the note is for feedback and not part of my RfD

Arguments

R1
Cons primary argument is that the AR15 is little different than many other weapons, and does have other uses.

Pros starting argument is that the AR-15 is particularly used in a lot of mass shootings, and it’s effectiveness at killing people. Pro makes the case that other weapons can be used for legitimate roles that the AR-15 is currently used for.

So far, this undermines pros point on legitimate use, and shows a specific harm that warrants a ban.

R2:

Con points out that most gun deaths are not AR-15s and this I feel undermined pros argument from how widely it is used.

I did not feel cons argument that just because it is effective doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be bad. First it appears to concede that it’s more effective than other weapons, and it ignores that pros argument isn’t effectiveness - but effectiveness at killing people that is at issue.

Pros hammers home his point that the legitimate usages of the gun can be replaced with other guns. He argues that if the gun con cites is just as dangerous - it should be banned too - I felt this was particularly good (FB: Con left himself open to this attack by talking solely about the AR-15 remember the ban pro must support could be larger than AR-15. Pro could have also argued for a broader and wider ban if he had desired.)

(FB Note: this felt mostly like a rehash of R1 by pro - I think okay to rebut immediately preceding arguments in this type of policy debate unless otherwise stated. It makes for a nicer flow)

R3:

Con continues to hammer the usage of the AR-15 claiming it’s not used in most mass shootings, he also asks about other weapons to be banned - how many should be banned?

I don’t find slippery slopes particularly good arguments, but con does point out the potential issues with where you draw the line.

Pro points out deaths in Las Vegas and effectiveness of the weapon, and mostly reiterates the previous rounds, on points I have already mostly discounted.

What pro doesn’t do, is argue an effective case as to what impact banning the gun would have. This is important as pro has to convince me that there is benefit to banning the gun.

In my view pro gets me most of the way there by stressing the particular effectiveness, and how good it as killing - together with negating the possible downsides.

At this point, though, cons argument that pro didn’t counter is that a ban won’t have any benefit. However - pros main argument that con didn’t counter is that there isn’t really any harm.

Pro was in the better position to win here, but didn’t really address pros final concerns head on (banning all weapons).

Because of this I both sides pulled me in their direction - but neither pulled me far enough to their side to award a win.

Thus, arguments are tied.

Sources:

Pro makes good use of sources to boost his warrant. The guns and ammo link, and global news link confirm the main crux of his argument which in my view put these out of the realm of contention. His mass shooting ar15 links from USA today in round 1 were particularly good. This is a good usage of links to prove that what you’re saying is true, and made it harder for con to contest the basics - as a result I felt pros sources bolstered his warrant on key points.

Con on the other hand did not offer sources.

Sources to pro.

Arguments:

Con makes a series of points of why you shouldn’t kill baby hitler. These are broadly.

- Potential Paradox.
- Butterfly effect of Changes making the world worse.
- You should not kill babies.

Pro doesn’t really address the first other than to say paradox would create multiple timelines. While I don’t think this is true - neither side really contest this (Pro could have gone for the classical approach in that paradoxes are not possible).

The second, pro relies on really a counter claim: that it won’t necessarily cause issues, and this timeline maybe doomed. As we don’t know, cons argument that there may be severely negative consequences is a good enough reason in my view to not kill hitler - just in case. While some of what pro mentions relating to computers and some advances are true: but the wider unknown sense - Con makes a compelling case.

The final point was not really engaged by pro.

Importantly, pros only defence of paradoxes is proposing multiple timelines - and it is pointed out by con that if this was the case then you shouldn’t kill hitler in that timeline as he may not be the same person if multiple timelines with different outcomes are possible.

Pros argument here is pointed out to be a concession: that if nothing has true meaning there is no need, or motivation to kill hitler in the first place.

Pro dug himself a hole, and makes me draw a conclusion on this debate, as to whether there can be any motivation or reason for any individual to kill baby hitler in a universe where nothing matters. Obviously not: so I side with con.

While pro concedes the resolution, even discounting this, cons first and second point were stronger and better argued and would still have won.

Arguments to con.

Conduct to con due to pros forfeit and no forfeit from con

To prove the contention - pro has to provide evidence that there is no distinct racial grouping for Jews. The only real arguments provided for this, is that a particular ethnic group of Jews in Europe only has 3% genetics related to the Middle East.

On provides a link to a particular type of Iraqi Jew which appear to have the specific link that pro claims doesn’t exist.

The important aspect here is that if pro can use one subset of Jewish individuals to prove there is no race, I see no reason why con can’t do the same - especially when qualifying criteria of the resolution are not made clear for either side.

Given that neither side really makes clear what they define a race as; I have to detemine this on my own: and in my view cons final argument - that inherent genetic markers and ties to a particular region would necessarily be sufficient to determine race. As pro offers no such alternative - I have to side with con - though I would encourage con to raise this earlier in the debate.

As a result - arguments to con:

All other points tied.

So, cons main argument, supported by sources, argued that 80% of drugs that work on animals don’t work on humans. While I don’t feel that this was fully explored by either side, pro didn’t give me any reason to discount cons position here. Pro needed to either disprove this position - or justify why 20% of drugs working justify the usage of animal testing. While pro came in the right ballpark by saying that animal testing doesn’t guarantee the drug will work - pro fell short of overturning this point

In the absence of this, I don’t feel pro offered enough of a justification in support of animal testing otherwise - as the arguments were predicated on arguing that animal testing is useful (which is directly opposed to cons sources argument)

I felt that cons arguments about death row inmates were largely irrelevant as they did not affirm or negate the resolution, so these held no weight.

Not a great debate.

Con highlights a series of deviations between classical liberals (conservatives) and liberals: these include gun control, environment and religious freedom.

Pros response was to concede some of the differences exist, but they don’t matter: or to try and argue that the “liberals” are not acting liberal, or “classical liberals” are not acting classically liberal.

As con and pro both agreed on instances where there are deviations, it is incumbent on pro to show how those differences are merely one side being “a bit more liberal”, or “a bit more classical”. Pro doesn’t do this to any degree, and doesn’t appear to attempt to link his counter arguments to this rebuttal. He argues mostly that liberals are less liberal, classical liberals are the liberal side - and barely touches upon any of the contentions he needs to support.

As a result, while Alec did a poor job of dismantling this - he did enough to prove his burden, and pro was not able to match it.

Arguments to con.

Conduct:

Pro:

“I am so fucking sick of the intellectual dishonesty and silly word games”
“your stupid assertion doesn't even make any sense from a purely grammatical standpoint.”
“See how much of a dick you're being?”

Pro was excessively rude and profane throughout, Con was not.

Conduct to con

RfD in comments: https://www.debateart.com/debates/542?open_tab=comments&comments_page=1&comment_number=36

Pro conceded.

Full Forfeit

Full forfeit

Full forfeit.

This is actually pretty easy.

This all boils down to the definition of what it means for a system to “work”. While I think this wasn’t nearly thrashed our well enough during the debate, with pro mostly implying that con is obviously wrong - and pro mostly pushing a very preferential dictionary definition - not only did pro cover what workings means better, and back this position up - but even if I use my own intuition a political system that lasts multiple generations - or a thousand years matches any practical definition.

I felt con tearing apart pros only objection to the Ireland example more than sufficient, by pointing out the primary issues that pros sources raised: specifically regards to the king not making the laws.

As a result, con negates the resolution simply with the Ireland argument - as this on its own shows one example of anarcho capitalism working: as a result or no other arguments pro or con raised on unrelated matters can overturn this negation - as con has to simply show one example. Arguments to con.

Pro backed himself into a corner with the resolution, and whilst I may have awarded conduct points to him if he had argued con was being unfair - he instead resorted to name calling:

“Actually you are a lazy, intellectually dishonest cretin looking for ways to reframe my arguments rather than dispute them.”

“Debating you is pointless because you are a cheap pseudo-intellectual weasel trying to avoid having to actually win by debating.”

Name calling and as Homs like this have no place in debates. Conduct to con.

So I am much more a Trance Addict than the the more electro pop side of things. I prefer up tempo instrumental with a good hook. My baseline for vocal excellence in songs, take a look at Above And Beyond.

1.) Just Got paid.

Okay - reminds of a ministry of sound pop filler track. 5/10

2.) Hypnotic

Again, just okay. Nothing there that I’m going to remember tommorow, just middle of the road stuff. 5/10

3.) Trap

I like the vocals, but I didn’t like either the disjoint beat, or the discordant instrumental - it felt like something was missing in the breaks: 4/10

4.) Vincent

This was a let down. I loved the build up,
love the vocals, but the break down was terrible and felt out of place with the rest of the song. 4/10

5.) Halogen another poppy song. It’s okay, but it’s middle of the road again. 5/10

Pro 23/50

1.) Dont Go.

Good build up, I felt the breakdown left something to be desired. The main riff not as bad as Vincent as bad. So will score this a bit better. 5/10

2.) Kygo

Marginally better, a little bit more melodic and less poppy, but it didn’t do anything tingly. 6/10

3.) neffex
I really didn’t like this one - too hip hoppy, not enough tune. The main break is not catchy enough to redeem it imo.
1/10

4.) Migos - again not my cup of tea, I slightly preferred the main break to neffex. But only just. 2/10

5.) Enjoy the ride.

Fuck yeah. This is my Jam Baby. So, I really liked this one. Excellent use of variation and layers, cracking build up, and nice drop with a great theme. The only reason this doesn’t get 10, is that I felt that the main theme was too on beat, the gap between felt like it needed to be filled with a background Melody to fill in the hole. 9/10

I also just downloaded it - it’s a great running track!

23/50.

Full forf.... wait what?

This one was easy.

The resolution as outlined was that God is impossible. In my view pro has to provide some Justification as to why God is not just unlikely, but impossible. Pro argues that Gods implicit spontaneous self generation renders him impossible. I felt con highlighted this well in R2 - that the Big Bang has the same issue - yet we exist and no realize that there is no issue. I feel this slightly edges out pros argument.

On top of this, pro was clearly unable to beat cons semantic definitional argument, I normally give tremendous leeway to the victims of this form of semantic chicanery, but pro doesn’t appear to offer any semantic response, with his star wars point it seems pro doesn’t realize that pro is talking about figurative not literal existence.

As a result pro marginally fails his arguments and loses the counter argument. Arguments to con.

While I would normally give Conduct to pro here due to the semantics, pros called con mentally ill, and his last paragraph was pretty substantial violation of debate etiquette. Language and manners always beats semantic mark downs. Conduct to con also.

All other points tied.

https://www.debateart.com/debates/452?open_tab=comments&comments_page=1&comment_number=62

Pro provides a logically rational example where abortion should be allowed. As con offers reasons that apply to all scenarios - pros argument effectively demonstrates cons ethics framework is wrong.

Conduct to pro for cons plagiarism.

I felt Supa, on balance had the better rhymes, and a few better disses. T1 did make a shot at a little bit more complex structure and style, but I felt this was at a detriment to his rhyming and general flow.

“This isn't overwatch, you can't ask for any fucking healings
And my lyrics about to make you go Drake in his feelings”

“Failure like Zedong
Chances of winning, real long
My dick, real long, what a schlong”

We’re probably my favourite rhymes of the rap.

Saying that, both sides were close here, but supa just edges it.

RfD from comment: https://www.debateart.com/debates/534?open_tab=comments&comments_page=1&comment_number=10

Full forfeit

Full foefeit

Full forfeit.

Clearly a troll argument from con, that I do not believe I am obliged to accept. Short number of characters and rounds makes this hard to judge, but this goes to pro as con does not appear to have even tried

Clearly a troll argument from con, that I do not believe I am obliged to accept. Short number of characters and rounds makes this hard to judge, but this goes to pro as con does not appear to have even tried

Cons major arguments unrefuted due to forfeit.

The resolution is that Viruses don’t exist.

Pro appears to have the burden of proof here: and from this, he has the burden to provide an argument as to why currently medically accepted concepts of viruses do not really exist.

Pro asked a series of questions that seemed blatantly absurd, and made no attempt to fully explain their relevance. I cannot five any particlar credence to them regardless of how they are answered unless pro provides a detailed explanation of how those questions fit into the resolution.

Moreover, while pro asserts in multiple locations that viruses do not exist, and that disease are caused by diet, I cannot find any location where he provides any substantial argument where he explains and details the reasoning of why viruses do not exist. This is a debate site, and starting a debate then simply asserting the Spanish flu was caused by bad diet with little other detail is not sufficient to meet your burden of proof that viruses do not exist.

Importantly, as well as the irrelevant side track of the questions - con showed multiple images of viruses.

Other than dismissing these images, as fake - pro offers no other explanation, and simply dismisses this evidence out of hand.

If pro isn’t able to offer an argument against why these images of viruses are not viruses other than “they could be anything”, then he concedes the point in my view.

As pro offers no argument as to why he thinks viruses dont exist - only assertions - and has no real rebuttal to being presented with a picture of a virus, he wins.

Sources:
Pro made a series of wild claims, and none of his sources supported the primary contentions he was making about diet, his sources, such as the Spanish flu link, we’re primarily scientific that were then wildly extrapolated without warrant.

Con on the other hand, won by presenting images from reputible medical sources, which is basically the core reason he won.

Sources to con.

Conduct:

Pro is rude and petulant throughout:
“Con spits the dummy here”

“Con has shown his belligerent nature and thinks that he can bully and threaten people into submission. His new boxer avatar is even more appropriate than his previous arrogant man avatar. lol”

And repeated use of derogatory “lol”s directed at con - condict to con.

Pro offers the utilitarian moral framework, and chooses two examples of how this framework comes to better answers than Kants CI.

Cons main stated benefit of CI, and the failure of utilitarian framework is that it’s not possible to follow because it’s not possible to know the actual consequences of an action.

Pro points out, that mills stated that it need not be actual harm and benefit that comes from the action, but the expected benefit.

Pro then lays out two additional conflicts with CI (murder isn’t against the framework, but lying is) relating to contradicting our will, and that charity towards the poor is immoral.

Con appears more fixated that the utilitarian framework Cannot be applied, due a disconnect between expectation and reality.

I don’t feel con makes a good enough appeal as to why that’s necessarily a problem, he touched upon results determining whether something is moral, which is not the same as expectation, so it can’t be a good moral framework - but I don’t feel this was thrashed our well enough

I don’t think pro did a good enough job on this count to thoroughly explain why this disconnect is okay - the resolution is whether CI is better than MU, and simply arguing that MU intentionally has that disconnect doesn’t refute cons point.

However, on balanced the R1/2 points raised more more substantial and cast a bigger shadow over CI, than I feel pro dis on MU: and as con only provided a minimal justification of why CI is valid, and didn’t defend it against these conflicts raised by pro - I have to award arguments on these grounds.

All other points tied.

I consider pro to have the burden of proof here.

Importantly, for pro to meet this initial burden to me as a voter, pro must provide me some facts and/or argument that shows that Gods existence is necessary. So let’s move on to argument.

1.) Evolution can’t explain X.

If I assume this is true, it doesn’t mean God is real.

2.) The Bible says some things about that can be validated today.

If I accept this premise on its face, it doesn’t mean God is real.

The examples given, in my view are terrible.

2.a) Even If the Bible said the guy ate well, I don’t feel this shows God exists

2.b) Even If the Bible says honey is healthy, I don’t feel this shows God exists.

2.c) Even If the Bible says stress causes illness, I don’t feel this shows God exists.

2.d) Pro correlates “hauntings”, with the rich people. This is hugely tenuous, as it requires me to accept hauntings are real, and to accept pros facts on their face.

2.e) Even If the Bible says you should drink while pregnant, I don’t feel this shows God exists.

3.) Even if everything Pro said was true about giants, I don’t feel this shows God exists. Most of this argument seems fairly tenuous, and along the ilk of conspiracy theory where pro seeks to explain facts, not justify the resolution.

4.) Pro asserts that there must be thought for life to happen. Pro provides no meaningful justification for why he feels this is true. In my view pro has to offer a more detailed explanation for me to consider this as valid.

So at best, pro offers only the most tenuous of arguments, without supporting facts, and primarily asserted. I can assume everything he said were true and it doesn’t logically follow that God is real.

As in my opinion the BoP falls to pro here, the absence of pro establishing his burden is that con wins.

Con:

Cons only made two attempts at an argument. The first was to point that proving evolution false does not show God exists. The second was a fairly tenuous Kritik, in my view a pre fiat Kritik has to be pretty solid in order to win, and this one was fairly lax - but pro doesn’t bother to refute it.

All told con gets arguments here as a result - even though he appeared to do everything he could to lose this debate.

Conclusion:

This debate was objectively a bit of a mess as both sides lost site of the resolution. Pro moreso than con.

Neither side offered a strong cohesive message of why their side was better and stronger, nor gave me a way of determining how I should even tell what constitutes better in the first place.

In my view both sides presented mostly a distorted caricature of the opposing party: though con did better in contrasting if the two sides, and objectively explaining the importance of the issues: In terms of military and issues of income inequality

Multiple points were dropped by both sides to the point I lost count. Multiple things pro said were objectively divorced from reality, and yet con did not challenge them.

I also felt pros rebuttals in particular seemed to often completely lack any context, and grounding of the resolution to the point their relevance to the debate was far more questionable :

“The Consulate General places are all D-heavy. New York, San Francisco, Houston and Minneapolis”  Because in the US, urban areas tend to be politically left. It’s the opposite in Belgium.”

This seems like pro is trying to simply explain why things are a particular way, rather than trying to explain why this makes republicans are better than democrats. This was the case in multiple places, far more than con.

The only thing that really separates the two sides is pro conceded that democrats were smarter, that republicans are accepting of the KKK and their speech, and the democrats are not; con attempted to refute almost every point pro raised in support of republicans, whereas con dropped EVERY benefit con raised about democrats in the opening round.

As a result I must award arguments to con.

More detail in comments from Comment 11

Summary :
A.) Rules. Pro clearly stated the rules were optional unless accepted.

This is a debate - con makes an argument as to why the rules shouldn’t apply, if pro wanted the rules to apply, he should have at the very least made an argument justifying why the rules he provided should be followed. Simply repeatedly asserting that con broke the rules (which con negates), is not a recipe for winning the point.

In fact, at several points - with definitions and the rules - pro gave the impression that he forgot this was a debate - and that he had to provide arguments to support his position. I appreciate this was not the debate pro wanted, but you simply cannot respond to what amounts to the best kritik I’ve seen on this site with emphatic assertions that your opponent should not be kritiking you.

The final round was even worse it bordered surreal, where pro spent the entire round telling voters how pro had conceded and his definition was correct, immediately after con had mounted a blistering rebuttal of each one of those points.

B.) If this was intended to be a debate, it cannot be a debate if we use pros rules and definitions, as the resolution would be affirmed no matter how well con argued - if it wasn’t intended to be a debate, then the definitions are clearly detrimental and should be rejected to allow con to have a debate.

Either way, pros all-encompassing original definitions must be rejected on these grounds. (Note: Con essentially affirmed these points during the debate). Con wins.

C.) Con argued that multi word terms cannot be defined on a word by word basis, pro has no rebuttal.

As a result Pros definitions must be treated as incomplete. Con wins

D.) Pros second definition was backed up solely by single word functional definitions - which con had already demonstrated was invalid (pro dropped this), and which pro refutes using the same source ( Pro dropped this definition). Con demonstrated third definition was taken out of context and didn’t mean what pro claimed it did, using examples and sources.

As a result, pros definitions must be rejected. Con wins

As con argued, easily, that the common parlance definition, the Wikipedia definition, the Brittanica definition, and the dictionary definition agreed with him: and pro did not refute any of them: cons definitions should be accepted. Con wins

Conclusion:

This wasn’t even even close. Nor even close to close. Con gave me at least 3 reasons to vote for him, any of them would have won on their own. Pro made little attempt to defend any of his positions. Arguments to con.

Conduct:

Pro was profane throughout “fuck common parlance”, “fuck you con”. Pro was rude and profane throughout.

By his arguments, pro was clearly intending this debate to be unwinnable by the definitions he posted - setting out to create a debate that you cannot lose because of the rules and definition you try and impose rather than how good your arguments is just plain shitty and merits markdown.

Regardless of motivation - death argues in good faith - rather than simply abusing/trolling pro. As a result, the only specific conduct violation is that he accepted the debate knowing pro didn’t want him to.

In my view, pros violations are far more severe thus conduct to con.

Sources:

Con won this debate on his definitions, which he pinned on his sources. He used multiple independent sources to validate his definitions mean what he claimed, then when pro cited his definitions from wikipedia, tore those sources apart, and showed they actually refuted pros position - he did this at least three times (genetic engineering, Wikipedia definition twice), and it got to the point I almost felt bad for pro.

Remainder of RFD from comment #100

Arguments.

After the first round, it appears both pro and con appear to settle down into an argument that really hinges on whether “immaterial things” exist.

In my view, this approach means con has effectively pulled the burden of proof to him, which is not a great move when you don’t have to. (Feedback, never take on any additional burden unless there is literally no other way)

Con appears to raise a few examples. In no particular order:

1.) Free will.

Con argues free will exists, and as this cannot be explained if all our minds is matter and forces.

Pro explains this by arguing that free will doesn’t exist. While I felt pro could and should have done more here, con didn’t justify why he felt free will exists, so pros return argument is sufficient.

2.) laws of mathematics.

Mathematics, con argues that 2+2 cannot equal 5 in any other universe, I don’t feel he is able to support this. In my view pro doesn’t do a particularly great job of this one either. Con does raise the abstract nature of mathematics and how that pro doesn’t fully cover, in my view.

Part of his main justification, however, is to tie it to the laws of logic, which con does a better job of justifying previously.

3.) The laws of logic.

Cons Argument is predicated in the laws of logic being transcendent, and that there is no world where p = !p.

Pro devastates this argument with his argument from quantum theory, I cannot stress how totally this one is blown out of the water by con.

From this, I can only take the view that pro has not shown anything immaterial exists, and arguments must go to pro.

Conduct:

I would normally award conduct to pro here due to the forfeit, but will cede this time to extenuating circumstances for this single time.

Pro has to establish his reasoning as to why the universe can be considered to be made of only one particle, the closest he came to justifying his position was: “Thus, using this principle we can create a universe with the simplest solution. We can start with the fewest number of particles that the universe can be made of. The answer to this must be, only one particle, because that is the smallest possible number that is available and it is a good starting point”

This doesn’t seem to provide any reasons as to why the universe is made of one particle, and even starts one particle is merely a starting point for consideration.

The remainder of his opening round appears to be stating there is more than one particle in the universe, repeatedly using plurals, and saying that the universe has three particles. It was completely unclear throughout the specifics of what pro was arguing, leave alone what his justification was.

Con, however seems to be doing his best to try and lose the debate by not engaging in any meaningful way, other with a dismissive counter, and rudeness. If pro had done better to express his position, con would have lost this. However con pointing out that pro repeatedly confuses his own point, then pointing out the absurdity of how a sphere is 3 things in round 4 - combined with pros lack of argument tipped me over the edge from a draw.

This was close - and there was no need for it to be close.

Conduct to pro because of round 4+5 rudeness including “Occam's Razor slice your neck, boom dead bye.”.

Arguments:

Pros argument depends on all pinnipeds being “seals”. He provides sources to back this up which refer to pinnipeds as seals.

Out of his sources, coincidentally, the Brittanica dictionary defines seal as any of the 32 species of pinniped - con missed that there are actually 34 species of pinniped, and could have used that but didn’t.

Throughout the debate, pro primarily relied on these definitions.

Pro did not offer any argument or sources that explicitly said “Sea lions are seals”, However at least two of his sources came as close as is possible to doing that without being quite that explicit.

On the other hand con did not offer any arguments or sources that explicitly said “Sea lions are not seals either”, however con did offer up multiple examples where sources and information indicate that sea lions are different from seals.

Pro explained that cons sources differentiated sea lions and seals as they are using a narrower definition, but cast the sources that differentiate as not authoritative to define the meaning of the words.

As con has no opportunity to refute, I have to consider that.

A large thrust of cons argument is that only “true seals”, are actual seals. I found this argument wholly lacking, relying on a fairly tenuous dictionary reference and not really relying on any sources - as pro pointed out.

I tend to give more benefit of the doubt to debate positions that appear unwinnable due to definition.

However, cons only argument that pushed me his way was sources that said sea lions were different from seals: but he didn’t do enough, IMO, to justify why all dictionary definitions, and encyclopedias were wrong. To win this, pro not just to separate seals from seal lions, but to explain why this separation is more valid than the definitions con provided. Simply arguing that only true seals are seals, and scientists named the group wrong is not sufficient.

If con had pointed out the Brittanica source 34/32 species thing or similar, and if he had mentioned the word paraphyly, and used examples - I would have awarded the win. But in my view, he fell short in this respect.

Arguments to pro.

RFD in comments:

https://www.debateart.com/debates/471?open_tab=comments&comments_page=1&comment_number=80

The resolution and what it means here is completely unclear. Pro doesn’t seem to elaborate in their opening round, and it appears to give the impression they are arguing that people act to maximize their satisfaction - and as they don’t know how to be more satisfied - they don’t change behaviour.

Con points out multiple examples where people don’t act this way (cravings, procrastination, and act in the opposite way ( harming themselves to help people they love).

Con furthers this by arguing there is no way to prove pros position wrong (though this is based on an anticipatory argument).

Cons final point is that there may not be an overall reason for action in terms of goal, but simply our understanding and method of communication pushes us into explaining it in these terms. This was interesting, but I feel con needed to elaborate on this further.

In round 2, pro appears to drop the satisfaction argent, and move onto an evolutionary fitness argument. Like before, this does not appear to tie in with the resolution. Pro does not make it clear why this argument supports their position.

Con cited several examples of individuals going against evolutionary fitness too.

Maybe their final round, pro again doesn’t tie in his arguments with the resolution, and it isn’t fully clear to me what round 3 was intended for.

It’s hard here, as I don’t feel pro or con referenced the resolution much during this debate, though con did much better in their opening when referencing that there may be no reason for action. In general though I have to give this to con: as they were clearer, and did far better in illustrating, elaborating and refuting their opponents position - as most of cons points were unrefuted - this must go their way.

This debate was rather odd, as neither side meaningfully defined what being alive really means, so it’s difficult to quantify which side showed their definition was accurate or not, or whether virus meet that definition or not.

Pros argument that bacteria and viruses are related, and as one is alive the other is too, is wholly uncompelling but unrefuted.

Cons argument from evolution - likewise didn’t feel all that compelling other than a statement that mutations can only happen with the assistance of a host cell - though this was not elaborated on.

As a result, pro has to have the win here, as he ran with this definition based on evolution and argued viruses are alive as they do indeed evolved which was unrefuted due to forfeits.

Saying this, Pros rebuttal was unaddressed and with 2/3 rounds forfeited by con - with no argument presented following the opening round - this debate is a full forfeit, and as normal I will be voting as such.