Ramshutu

Full forfeit.

Conduct for forfeit - arguments and sources as pro offers no arguments at all.

Given multiple forfeit rounds, lack of any arguments by pro, and the apparent near-concession offered by pro- I count this as a full win for con

Full forfeit.

No content.

Pro offered a justification for their position regarding colonizing Venus for fuel. Con didn’t really present an argument of any substance, there was little justification given other than a throwaway statement about running out of resources. As a result, pro wins on arguments.

Full forfeit.

Conduct to pro: cons opening argument was an argument based on semantics: while there is no hard and fast description of “assault weapons”, I felt it was clear what pro meant, and con used the specifics of the words pro used to argue he was in favour of something else: and that it applied to all guns l. Semantics are always a bad argument, but this is sufficient for a conduct mark down as it was expressly forbidden in the debate terms. While this was a borderline call, I feel it balances it with arguments, which I was also borderline and came down the other way.

Arguments: Concealed Carry laws: pro cites that where there is CCLs homicide rates increase. Con initially attacks this by saying CCW holders are safer (which wasn’t necessarily the contention) - pro attacked this position, but con the cited contrary data. Pro then tries to have it both ways by saying that cons examples where homicide rates go down are “correlation is not causation” but where they go up is not. There was a lot of stat haggling, but imo con did more than enough to negate pros point by citing other data. 1-0 Con.

Gun laws: this sections source of contention is similar to the first. Con contends that gun laws don’t work, pro suggesting they do. Firstly con appears to concede that pros contention is true, but doesn’t matter as the overall homicide rate should be considered. For me, con not put enough explanation into the relevance of that, and pro made a reasonable case as to why cons single source should not be used as an indicator. Now tied 1-1.

Assault weapons. Pros point is that there is no real useful purpose of assault weapons (I use my common understanding of the phrase), con made a series of points as to how assault weapons are not used in as many crimes or kill as many people - I found this open very weak - assault weapons here are being considered on their own merits, not in relation to hand guns viewed as a whole - I find cons comparison here fails. Cons use of DGU in this context is not relevant for this same reason. Pro points this out. Con also erodes his own point by later stating how accurate and deadly “assault weapons” can be, which tends to undermine this. Pros response basically provides an argument that while handguns kill more, assault weapons are more deadly, and supports this with data. Cons rebuttal now becomes weaker, and somewhat contradicts his other points - arguing the effectiveness of handguns and ccw makes it feel like con argues handguns are better, then rifles are better and changes which depending on the point he’s making. The crux of this, is that for me pros argument about how deadly rifles are, is the knockout point, and con doesn’t really counter it. 2:1 to pro.

Second Ammendment. Pro preempts arguments about legality by constraining the gun control he is talking about, and by pointing out various types of control that already exists. There were many points thrown around so was difficult to follow. I found that pro shot himself in the foot - by raising the argument that the Supreme Court ruled for self defence, lending credence to cons position that it should be allowed. I was less convinced about assault weapons. As I had difficulty tying back what was being contended with the debate itself, and as both pro and con made good points. I can’t fully claim to show a winner on this point. 2-1 pro.

So, as this is a mixed result, I want to further weight the result out of 5 points

So, the first ccw was a primary argument, and cons argument was excellent to muddy the waters and erode pros point. I weight this pro +5.

The second (gun laws), was not as important, and not a resounding victory. I weight this as pro +1.

The final non-draw was assault weapons. I felt pro landed the only true knockout argument in this debate here, but I don’t think the assault weapon portion was as worth as much as the arguments surrounding the effects of generalized weapon bans. I award this pro +3

While this is very hard to call, I think Con JUST gets the edge, and should be awarded arguments. I think with the Conduct points awarded, the overall scoring of giving +2 overall is a fair reflection on the debate.

Sources were excellent on both sides: and most of the really good arguments landed on both sides were supported with data.

I couldn’t find much to separate either on spelling and grammar.

I really want to say that this was one of the better debates to vote on and critique, so well done to both sides.

Arguments to pro: pro met his initial burden of proof with his opening round. Unfortunately the debate was whether the KCA is sound, not whether God exists. Con must attack the KCA in his arguments directly to show that the argument is unwarranted but did not do that. Instead, he simply attacked the KCA for lack of evidentiary support for God, which I felt was completely itrrelevany. In this regard, in my view none of cons arguments counted towards the debates contention and thus pro wins arguments.

Sources also go to pro. Much as I hate WLC, and the KCA, the basic principles were well cited by pro which improved the credibility of his argument. Con used no sources at all.

Conduct to pro: I went back and forth several times on this. While I don’t know whether it was done on purpose, I felt that cons argument was both a Kritik in spirit - in that while it isn’t an explicit kritik, it’s effectively challenging the epistemology of the debate premise, which in my view is more than close enough - this was explicitly prohibited in debate rules. The back and forth was due to the behaviour not being a full and explicit kritik: but after some thought, while I wouldn’t go far enough to award a full win (as per rule 11), it’s close enough to waamrrant a violation for conduct.

Conduct to pro for the forfeits.

Conduct to pro for cons forefeit.

Sources, grammar and conduct excellent for both parties: this was an EXCELLENT debate, and both should be commended.

Arguments. I’m going to go through each argument thread in turn here, in no particular order (and a summary of my interpretation of what was said)

1.) pro: Self defeating empiricism. Massively summarized, pro argues that empiricism fails as it can’t prove itself to be true: I felt cons rebuttal here - that this is effectively true of all epistemological models so isn’t a reason to discount successfully rebutted pro, and as such this contention fails. 1-0 Con.

2.) pro: Empiricism assumes that what we see is real, and out sense is accurate and it may not be. (Massive summarization). Here Con points out (with the brain example), that this is really a semantic argument: that such a reality would be objectively real - but not in the way we necessarily think. In addition, pointing out multiple observations helps bolster the case by explaining that it’s based on one person - who could be hallucinating - but many - would would all have to having the same hallucination. Much of this portion of argument became far too semantic in places, but I felt con had the edge here too. 2-0

3.) pro: rationalism as a framework. Pro starts off with I think therefore I am, but seems to mix this up with “I think therefore I am rational”, pro needs to be establishing the practical reliability, but I found this link tenuous at best. When reading the something from nothing part jumped off the page for the same reason, I felt pro simply says something cannot come from nothing - by defining it as such. Con points out the same flaws with rationalism as pro pointed out. Con foundered in this argument, up until his closing argument - I had on pegged for a loss on this one until he clarified that rationalism requires an external reality for its truths to be measured in order to be determined as valid or not. For me this thrust wins this aspect for me - but con should probably have raised this right at the start. 3-0 Con

4.) The benefit of empiricism. Cons argument here, is basically that empiricism allows you to check whether your claims are correct against some external reality. I felt this was a good summarization of the benefits, and felt pro didn’t fully address the crux here.

Importantly, while I get cons arguments were better, as I am genuinely on the fence between Rationaism and Empiricism i. Terms of which is better/more useful (the question maybe like asking whether drink is more important than food), neither side landed a knock out blow, and there wasn’t much that swayed me either way and thus I remain on the fence.

Great debate though, well done both.

Conduct to con : this debate shouldn’t exist and appears to be borderline harassment. Also a forfeit.

Arguments to con. Pro didn’t establish a basic burden of proof and merely asserts his primary argument. As no evidence or detail is presented, con wins by default on burden of proof.

Conduct to pro for forfeit.

Arguments to con. Con raised the argument that effectively the earth is very large, and as a result gives the appearance of being flat. Pro concedes this is a valid argument, and then suggests that this can’t be the case as balloons at altitude show no curvature - proceeding to show a video of a high altitude balloon that clearly shows curvature. This means con shows evidence to support an argument he claims is valid - and which refutes his position. That was devastating for pro. This was pointed out - and pro dismissed this as being from one camera (which he should have clarified) - however curvature is clearly visible in both the left and right hand aide camera.

Most of the remaining arguments from pro concern arguing about fisheye lenses. This argument can be discounted as pro makes no effort to explain his reasoning or providing any justification as to why his claims are true - specifically he claims that all video evidence can be explained by a fish eye lense, simply because the fish eye lense will curve images - he himself posted a video of a fish eye lense curving and straightening lines - as pro makes no effort to establish how fish eye lenses can produce the images he claims they can, merely establishing that they distort, this argument can largely be ignored.

As a result of pros self refutation, and lack of establishing much of a sensible argument to support his position: arguments go to con.

Sources go to con too: while con had a source that didn’t claim what he said, his source didn’t refute his position. Pro posted a citation that not only showed the opposite of what he said it did, but showed the very thing he said would invalidate his position. The remainder of pros sources appear to be mainly conspiracy videos - which inherently casts some doubt on the veracity of the claims.

Full forfeit.

Conduct to con as pro forfeited a round.

Sources to con. He backed up the specifics of everything he said and these supported his positions which bolstered his case.

Arguments to con. Actually, pro almost had it - as he is correct - Trump didn’t say what percentage Indian, nor did con actually counter this point (Trump was talking heritage throughout). I would have awarded pro arguments had he made a better argument with regards to conditions - arguing that Trump personally would need to perform the test is an obvious semantic point, but valid: and one that Pro could have done much better on - the idea that Trump couldn’t personally perform the test - while true - wasn’t a good rebuttal. As a result of this, while there’s one win each on the two argument points - the latter of which is most important - the remaining swing issue is that Pro did not offer a positive reason as to why Trump should pay the money, it was mainly a rebuttal. As such, while I was close to awarding arguments to pro, con edges this one out.

Con conceeded the debate.

Arguments to con: in debates like this, unless otherwise specified the claimant has burden of proof. In this case assessing all of pros claims, he has not met his initial burden of proof. In offering his opening and subsequent gambit, pro claims the GOP is existentially racist, but offers mostly generic blanket statement: that of “identity politics”. Without any specifics at all, and without making any arguments at all to tie the specific actions directly to racism, and above that racism based upon the existence of the party - the BOP is not met by pro. I’m very flexibile in BoP, and this decision is based on falling very far short in this regard. Even with raising Lee Atwater, pro mostly just cites this case but doesn’t use any specifics, making this simply a single anecdote / which con points out.

If pro had given multiple specific examples of actions, or provided a substantive argument concerning why the Republican parties actions explicitly merit red being called racism, this would not be the case. It’s s shame, as I don’t actually disagree much with pros debate contention.

As pro does not meet his burden of proof, con wins arguments by default.

Cons arguments were not in themselves particularly great: the crux of them was that the GOP is inclusive of other races, and that they don’t make laws that are specifically racist. These were supported by citations, these weren’t fully addressed by pro either saying that Ben Carson and Kanye aren’t big thinkers does not refute the argument that the GOP is relatively diverse, arguing that having few minorities doesn’t mean the party isn’t racist - but didn’t go to any length to establish that the lack of diversity made it racism either - pro needed to go into more detail in the refutations.

Either way, my weighting is that as Pro didn’t meet his burden of proof, 4 rounds of con posting “derp” would still have been sufficient and thus pro loses this point.

Sources: in the same vein as above, con provides citations that backed up his position, and demonstrated the points he was making, which bolstered his argument. Pros citations all failed to directly support his primary contention, the lack of such citations in part cost him the arguments portion of this debate.

Conduct for forfeit. I do not think the debate was structured in a way that I could figure it out to make a call on arguments.

Conduct to pro for the forfeit.

Arguments to con: so the primary crux of pros argument is to chose a particular set of definitions that define God into existence his entire argument throughout all rounds are variations of this - which he did successfully. This is generally a poor argument, that can only really be attacked with an argument based on definitions. Now, cons approach was novel, though semantic: to separate the truth of God from God itself - using the definition of Truth to show God cannot be truth. Unfortunately as pro relied totally on definitions he hoisted himself by his own petard in this respect, the argument from definition con made undermining the premise pro made, leaving no other real argument. As Pro did not rebut this definition argument - and con added sufficient doubt to mean pro did not sufficiently show their burden of proof.

Sources to con: pro used no sources, specifically with both the dictation art and philosophy of truth, con used his sources to seal up his Truth argument: the referencing here was perfect to hammer home the definition of Truth argument con made, and ended up being an important aspect to undermine pros burden of proof.

Conduct to pro due to forfeit.

Pros main argument was to define God into existence, con needed to attack this definition directly. While he came close by arguing that you can’t arbitrarily say God is Truth - but due to the definition Pro chose, it is not Arbitrary. Therefore cons counter was ineffective - without inherently demonstrating the issue with pros definition, pros argument stands and thus pro wins on arguments.

FUll forfeits

Full forfeit

Full forfeit.

I have to say “You think this beaks for squawking, you're the one typing here all day, like a wannabe rebirth of a debate-oriented Stephen Hawking,
You're a faulty-spermed worm whos 'snake's as dysfunctional as himself, filthy vermin,” won it for me.

RM was in my view a bit more creative, in both insults and scanning style.

Full forfeit.

Good use of sources both sides. However after writing my vote, I’m giving sources to con. Both his sources fully demonstrated cons point, and were not just individual data points, but covered most of his position in detail. Pro didn’t read these sources, and attacked a straw man of what he thought they said: which effectively gave Con the win on arguments. The Stanford example was similar. The sources here fully underpinned cons entire argument, and I felt they were incredibly effective. Whilst pro backed up individual small claims - nothing he cited was as broad or as solid in underpinned his argument as these from con. And as such sources gave cons initial argument a rock solid foundation that was almost unassailable - whereas pros did not.

Pro forfeited a round, which warrants a loss of conduct. Conduct deteriorated in the last post - instigated by pro - but I would warn both sides about such snarky behavior.

Arguments (in no particular order)

In general con talks about gun crime, gun crime stats, etc, pro throughout attempts to shift the argument to talking about crime in general. He mentions knives and illegally acquired firearms, but makes no real attempt to show they are translatable. IE, everyone commiting a crime with a gun today, would commit one with a knife or illegal gun tomorrow. Leaving that part unargued makes the shift to crime in general invalid.

1.) Con argues that crime doesn’t decrease with more guns. Pro dismisses this as a flawed NCVS study, but looking at cons source, this doesn’t seem to be the case: thus pros argument here is invalid, con goes on to site another study (his original link had multiple cited studies) which was dismissed as only a single study, which is a very poor rebuttal. 1-0 Con.

2.) Con argues that mass shootings occur because of the glorification of guns, and the volume of guns in the US, this seems reasonable on its face. Pro shifts again to crime in general and doesn’t offer a clear rebuttal of this position. He then appears to blame gun free zones - without offering a causal reason or argument to support this position, and offers solution. As a result pros response was more a deflection than a rebuttal and leaves cons original argument unrefuted. 2-0 Con.

3.) Con argues (with a source) that gun control actually works, citing a vox article (which itself cites research), that gun control actually works. Pro dismisses this as mostly Australia, and mostly revolving around crime rates which were already falling - but that isn’t what the source is talking about - the source cites multiple countries law changes before and after various controls were enacted. As a result, pros rebuttal can be discounted, as he isn’t rebutting the claims made by con. 3-0 Con.

These were the three main arguments raised, though there were a couple of main offshoots (and a deteriorating debate) which were ancillary at best, given the issues above. I will note: that pro argued pros claims were “correlation is not causation” then inferred correlation is causation in his next point, he also pointed out that a single study is not proof, after citing a single example is proof in the post before. After the second set of responses the debate was really poor on both sides, but didn’t factor in to my weighting as the opening arguments were strong and unrefuted. Both sides could have done better.

Sources: pro supported his first primary contention with sources, and supported a requested contention. Con supported none of his primary arguments with sources or references. As mentioned in arguments, pro uses his sources to establish his initial burden of proof in the opening round, establishing the baseline level of evidence which led credibility to the opening round, cons argument (as touched upon in my arguments decision also), was not underpinned by any sources or specifics, which eroded his position.As a result, sources go to pro.

Spelling + grammar. Con made several grammatical and spelling errors that tripped me up l. I didn’t notice any from pro: examples: “You did not rebuttal to this.” “no where”, “completely false left wing agenda's”. “Trump's” instead of Trumps, trump, “lye” instead of lie, and statements such as “The confidence is obviously lower because he is exposing the fake news media.” which made no sense in context. This impacted readability by making me have to go back and forth, and I felt the multiple errors per round that impacted readability were substantial enough to warrant the grammar point.

Conduct to pro. Con forfeited, pro deliberately ceded a round to make it fair: that’s good form - I would have awaded this point for cons forfeit alone, but must also stare that Con was also rude in the comments. Being rude, snide during a debate, even in the comments, is bad form.
Arguments. There were three main points raised. In the opening round pro met the basic burden of proof on all three - and I hoped the rest of the debate would revolve on defense and tear down of these points. The were:
1.) Trump is undermining the rule of law by his usage of the justice department. Cons rebuttal focused on the single example raised by pro - which was reasonable. However pro went on to list several other actions, and con did not present a cohesive rebuttal, making a limited reference to the attorney general being weak and then changing the subject to talk about Hillary clinton. Cons defense fell far short of rebutting pros contention. 1-0 pro.
2.) Trump and Republicans are engaging in voter suppression and gerrymandering. Cons main defense was not that this was not happening, but that everyone does it. Admitting that your opponents primary factual claims are correct on their face concedes the argument unless con attempted to show these actions do not undermine democracy - which he did not. Pro caveated “Trump and the republicans”, while con correctly points out Trump isn’t The instigator of these policies, cons argument that Trump is the leader of the party is a valid rebuttal with this caveat. As a result pro was far more compelling. 2-0 pro.
3.) Trump undermines the free media. Pro explains that Trump is undermining the free media, and is a compulsive liar. Con offers very little rebuttal of the latter, and basically rejects cons source without justification. Pro wins the lies argument. On the undermining of the media, instead of really arguing the point, cons primary argument wasn’t to use a very generic argument - without any specific examples or citations - that trump is fighting back, and the media is biased against him. This appears to implicit be arguing that Trump IS undermining the free media - but they deserve it. As he implicitly concedes the point, and offers no genuine defense or argument to support the media “deserving it” other than a very generic catch all argument with no examples or specific - This rebuttal is wholly ineffective. Pro 3-0
Pro wins arguments on all three points.

Sources to pro: con uses two sources in two arguments as a reference to the point he’s making. But pro cites all his main facts presented throughout. This make pros source more relevant. The selection chosen by pro (research and news), makes these sources more reliable. This makes pros primary contentions more reliable. Specifically: pros sources directly support his primary contentions (eg: he cites a source to show how many jobs needed to earn a living wage to show how poor the current minimum wage is), in multiple cases - bolstering his position, whereas only one of cons two sources directly supports his primary contention

Arguments to pro. Con starts with one main argument - that without a minimum wage, workers would end up earning more money anyway. Pros argument is a direct rebuttal to this (though it was not phrased as such), by showing that the money earner right now is not sufficient to live on, and individuals require on average 2.5 jobs to live on. This indicates to me that the data doesn’t support cons contention that workers would earn enough if there was a minimum wage. In addition: pros arguments about de facto corporate welfare, and poverty were much more compelling as reasons to support a minimum wage, and con did not offer any rebuttal.
The second set of arguments, primarily about the economic impact, con implied it would damage the economy, pro pointed out the research is flawed. As it was the last point, pro cast more than enough doubt on cons claim for me to discount it.
The final point was more of an alternative plan from con: Con didn’t explain this well enough so I didn’t fully follow what he meant, but it appeared to be a similar argument whereby people could have an opportunity to earn more in other jobs if they were available. Pro rightly points out that the low paying jobs still need to be done, and so this wouldn’t solve the problem con says it would.
As a result, the main arguments from con are fully eclipsed by what was presented by pro.

The whole debate from both pro and con break down into a discussion about infinite number series. Con makes a series of arguments about infinite number series, and argues what they actually mean, the best summary from his arguments was.

“Pro's argument here is that 0.9r = 0.0r1. This is not true. This is incorrect as it's logically inconsistent with the idea of infinity. By definition, infinity has no end and consequently there is no "after" with something infinite. There is no 1 after 0.0r because there is no "after" in the case of an infinitely long sequence. There is no "final number". Infinity goes on forever. The hypothetical 1 occurring after 0.0r supposed by Pro can't and doesn't happen as it's a logical impossibility.”

This on its own, wins the debate for con on arguments. This convincingly shows both the reason why pros arguments around number series is wrong, and demonstrates why (despite it being non intuitive), 0.9r = 1.

Pros entire argument effectively relates to variations on a theme to there being a number between 0.9r and 1, which requires them to hold different values: con shows this to be false with his explanation of infinite’s and number sequence. Pro doesn’t provide any convincing rebuttal of this silver bullet argument. Both pros mathematical and “intuitive” arguments were very, very well explained.

Conduct to con for forfeit.

Pros opening post contained no argument; but a series of absurd claims that I believe were either trolling or a failed attempt at comedy cons response was short and to the point, but basically pointed this out, and specifically that pro offered no evidence. Default BOP was not met by pro, so con wins on arguments.

Full forfeit

Full forfeit.

Forfeit/spam.

Total forefei!

Cons first part of his argument is that CKM is arguing all police are racist.

Pro destroyed this argument with his rebuttal: 1.) unconscious bias more than racism plays a factor, 2.) CKM wasn’t accusing all police of being racist, 3.) its more the criminal justice system as a wile. Both are important but pro really explains what the problem is well explained.

Cons third point, was equally well destroyed. Claiming that racial equality has been achieved was 100% refuted by pro citing examples of systematic and ongoing inequality.

Cons second argument was an amalgamation of the first and third.

As a result, pro clearly takes out all 3 points raised by con.

Con claims multiple times, that there are no laws that enshrine discrimination or mention race. Pro demolishes this too: by explaining that laws don’t have to do that to be discriminatory. He cited examples of cocaine laws, and pointed out his previous examples where it doesn’t even have to be a law. Pros reasoned rebuttal makes cons position seem like deliberately moving the goalposts. Con even objected that there were no specifics - in answer to the specifics that pro gave.

Con appeared to discredit CK motivations raising the money made and CKs specific performance, con doesn’t seem to make any actual point or makes any specific rebuttable claim here for me to assess here, and simply appears to be throwing it out to discredit CK - as pro points out.

In this respect, the primary arguments made on each side all went in pros favor.

Even in the final arguments raised, pro stated “blacks are more likely to be killed by the police than white”, con misrepresented this as pro stating that the absolute numbers shot are higher. Pro clearly corrects this misinterpretation.

Sources: clearly go to pro. Cons Washington post source in his final argument supports pro, con uses the heritage foundation (a highly biased source), half as many sources as pro, and almost all related to the largely irrelevant argument con made concerning CKM motivations.

Conduct to con for pros forfeit.

After “surveying the arguments”, it seems that pro didn’t provide a meaningful argument, and instead his opening argument appeared to be more of an incoherently rambling opinion: there was little in the way of an attempt on pros part to establish his position logically, or provide any walk through of the supporting logic. Con arguments are therefore more convincing because he correctly points out how con falls well short of his burden of proof. That some is sufficient to win the debate. Con goes further, by pointing out how the tenuous argument pro made was wrong: pointing out that the 1:0 alternatives are arbitrary and subjective.

Grammar and spelling go to con too: “Every something has to have something at it's core that makes it something”, “to it beyond it's discernible” - both should be its. General poor use of grammar, that make the arguments made hard to follow eg: statements like “many intellectually smart people” (redundancy), “How can I possibly know this you might ask?” Too short, needs a comma between this and you, breaks up the flow of the debate, and the choice of grammar in examples such as this makes it harder to read.

Full forfeit by Pro for conduct. All cons arguments went unrefuted, and he used a wider breadth of sources (YouTube And
Other website links).

Con clearly spelled out that the trilema was false, by explaining a fourth possibility. This would be enough on its face to invalidate pros argument. As Pro doesn’t offer any substantial reason to rule this example out, other than a highly semantic argument focusing on the definition of legend: con clearly wins arguments on the grounds he demonstrated the trillema was false.

In addition: con clearly cites examples of Lies told by Jesus, and examples where his family thought he was mad. Unfortunately for pro - the argument in favour of Jesus not being a liar or mad was entirely uncompelling and smacked of cherry picking - simply selecting all the times Jesus supposedly didn’t lie or didn’t appear mad cited from a clearly biased source isn’t a clear indication that he is not a liar, or a “lunatic”, and as a result cons position clearly wins on these two examples also.

Pro conceded.