Total votes: 689
Full forfeit
Full forfeit.
Full forfeit.
Full forfeit and fuller Plagurism.
Both sides forfeited, but Con was the only side that offered any form of argument relevant to the debate.
Full forfeit
Full forfeit.
Pro does not offer an argument : simply posts a series of topics from external sites verbatim in lieu of an argument. These were not quoted and in the body of the debate text as if they weren’t pros own arguments, though they were linked.
However - without pros own words, simply lazily copy pasting external sites cannot be considered as a valid argument provided and thus it must be treated as if pro offered no argument at all. As pro doesn’t offer an argument and con does - arguments go to con.
Conduct: again, con accepted an argument against pro - not the author of the websites he copy pasted this behaviour is far more toxic than an isolated forfeit so the forfeit point goes to con too.
No argument is offered by pro at all. Con demonstrates he has voted for pro - directly refuting the premise. Arguments to con, open and shut.
Sources: con won the debate with an unassailable source that demonstrated the resolution false, by linking the vote that refuted the resolution, cons source was seminal in the victory thus warrants the source point - pro offered no sources.
Conduct: this is a poor conduct call out debate - which, together with pros unwillingness to argue - is clearly poor behaviour, and Warrants a conduct mark down.
Con appeared to misunderstand the debate, and offered only a throw away accusation that pro challenged as unsupported, and low black unemployment.
Even if I accept these two points on their face - they still don’t address or refute the mental decline aspects that pro raised. Given that con offered no argument against these, they stand: and thus the impacts pro presented against Trumps reflection are far more substantial - thus arguments to pro.
1.) arguments to con. Pro offered only a short opinion in R1, a completely copy pasted argument in R2, which I have ignored due to plagiarism; con on the other hand needed only to have provided an argument to win - which he did.
2.) Conduct awarded due to both plagiarism and forfeits
Concession
1 arguments: pro presented a mathematical argument as to why 0.999r = 1, other than calling it nonsense, con did not offer an argument.
Conduct to pro for cons forfeit.
Full forfeit.
Full forfeit
Concession
Full forfeit
Full Forfeits
Pros argument is completely unwarranted; and as explained was a non sequitor. Even if I accept as true each of the facts that pro brought - they would not mean that Epstein is Alive.
Pro needs to do far more than he did; to present even basic evidence that the suicide was indeed fake, and that the best explanation of the available evidence was that he wasn’t killed at all, and is actually alive. Pro catastrophically fails to do this.
Full forfeit
This feels like pro is simply trolling.
Pro provides little more than a series of asserted arguments, with limited - if any logical arguments to pin it together. Pros points are basically arguing that life is complex, and life is structured in a way that provides useful function:
1.) life is complex
2.) ?????
3.) God.
Step 2 is the most important and appeared completely lacking.
Pros points are largely unstructured, difficult to read and beat no relation to the resolution presented.
Con provides a very simple case: for the resolution to be true; pro must rule out all other divine beings, using the FSM as a baseline example or causes of creation. This point basically undermines pros case, and gives him the burden of proof to show
While I have no doubt of pros personal convictions on this matter, pro offers little else other than his own incredulity about the existence of anything without God : which is no logical basis to form an opinion on.
Pro attempts to reject much of cons case by asserting demons - which appears pretty tied up with the premise he is trying to show in the first place.
Cons argument from unintelligent Design appears to clearly fit the facts better, with the examples con gave for limb length and animals getting ill.
Con also adds the possibility of evolution: broadly covering the process that produces life, which pro mostly replies with simple incredulity to dismiss.
This debate appears to be almost completely assertions by pro, who is unable to justify the conclusions; whilst con clearly introduces doubt into the possibility of something other than God creating everything by showing how other explanations better fit the facts.
On these grounds, the win goes to con.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1218/should-the-bible-be-used-as-a-moral-compass?open_tab=comments&comments_page=1&comment_number=43
Full forfeit
So, scanning through these - while I like sound of silence, it’s a great cover: as a huge fan of the prodigy, the three way acoustic cover was just perfect. I felt the remainder of the covers on both sides were instantly forgettable - but these two were the only ones that really stood out.
On that basis, as a life long Prodigy fan, (RIP Keith), and someone who owned every one of their albums plus an out of space bootleg; this cover worked for me: completely different than the source material, in a unique and different style but still honouring the essence and feeling of the originals. I would have preferred breath - but can’t have anything.
On this basis, I’m giving this one to con.
Concession
Concession
Arguments:
Due to plagiarism: I cannot accept pros R1 and R2; thus pro effectively makes no positive argument for his case. As a result, as BoP is on pro - this is an automatic loss on arguments; even before considering cons arguments relating to the reliability of the Bible. Arguments to con.
Conduct;
Pro plagiarized the entire R1 and R2 - this is clearly unacceptable, unfair and a substantial infraction that warrants award of conduct.
Concession
I will be honest and start off with saying that pros style here somewhat let him down. Pro appeared to rely heavily on asking questions to make rhetorical points: many of these felt like loaded questions, and felt like appeals to emotion - which are fine in some mediums, but don’t make it east to disentangle in this one.
Pros central argument upon which everything else seemed to be based, is that an unborn child, fetus, or embryo is a human being, and thus should be treated with the value and all the rights of a human being.
As a starting point, this seems reasonable: but con makes substantial inroads here by driving a wedge between extremes:
Contrasting MLK and embryos in a lab; or living, breathing, contributing humans to embryos that will not survive was an excellent appeal to intuition, that showed that pros argument wasn’t adequate to describe the nature of reality.
How con seemed to turn this debate on this point; was to show that the value of embryos and that of real living humans isn’t the same - thus pros value cannot apply, without having a good value with which to determine the relative worth of an embryo - this to me eroded the central plank of pros argument.
Pro mostly responded simply by trying to restate that embryos are humans, that humans have differing values - but the same objective value.
By the end of this inherent exchange, I was left in the position where I wasn’t sure what the value of an embryo is, nor how to really measure it : as while I’m prepared to buy pros premise, con showed that pros black and white approach is less inherently intuitive with cons more nuanced issues.
Cons central plank, is that forcing a woman to nourish and nurture and unborn child against her will is effectively slavery.
Con provides an explanation of why he feels a Woman carrying a fetus against her will is slavery - and pro largely appears to fully concede this point.
Pros main objection to the slavery point here - is to argue that just because something is evil, doesn’t mean it should be solved with another evil.
This all requires me to buy into pros values: which as explained, I don’t fully.
Pro indeed tells me that it’s wrong to fight one evil with another, and I think this point put a nail in the coffin: this appears to be exactly what pro is doing: suggesting that the evil of slavery is okay to fight the evil of rape, or other issues pro suggests - but the evil of termination is not.
If I had a good way of measuring the value, I may have come down a different way: but cons effective rebuttal to this point was to suggest that if one were to decide between two evils, slavery has a definitive harm, cost, and negatives - while the termination option is largely without any associated impact. I would have liked to see this point challenged with more than a dismissive line that seemed to miss the point con appeared to be making.
As pro tied everything back to his personhood claim - a point which I felt sufficiently muddied, this raised pros slavery claim: as he very much highlighted the harm, and essentially relied on a similar value case to pro (real people and humans that are born and are alive suffer and are harmed by this); because of all of this, arguments go to con.
I am going to tie all other points; while I considered conduct, I don’t feel this was clear cut enough for me to warrant an award.
Pros argument appears to be that all paths lead to truth: because when you die you get to determine the truth. On its face it seems that pro makes a semantic kritik of the term truth.
I may have been okay with this, but my problem is that Truth pro is talking about appears to substantially conflicts with the one intimated in the resolution - while pro sort of indicates a general intimated meaning of what this truth is; pro doesn’t link this back in to the resolution, or provide a definition that ties in with what con defined. If pro had added this, it may have been okay; but without it, pros argument appears ok it’s dave to be a kritik on its face - and somewhat unclear whether its definition affirms the resolution or not. As a result, I have to award this to con on this grounds.
The central premise of pros argument - that God created plants was unsupported. Con went through and repeatedly pointed out that pro has not justified his central claim : as he did not at any point show that the complexity of medicinal plants, or their actions was so extreme that it warranted only a divine creator to make them. Con pointed this out, and it was unanswered by pro, who seemed to feel pointing out examples that supported the first premise of his syllogism would be enough to prove the conclusion. Pro made an immense number of individual points: most falling under two main categories: plants are good, therefore God and evolution can’t happen.
The former as explained are all irrelevant, and the latter seemed wholly undermined by pros evidence.
Con on the other hand did well to justify the inherent evolved nature of plants, and tied back the remainder of arguments to this point: simply pointing con to the evidence to support evolution. Evidence and detail for how we can determine that plants had evolved and pros case appears to simply to be saying evolution can’t happen.
It’s not entirely clear why pro claims evolution can’t happen - it seems to be mainly that plants are too complex (which doesn’t answer cons argument), or that the mutations and genetic damage that pro has argued occurs and can potentially be fixed by some plants, don’t actually occur. In my opinion pro doesn’t do enough to justify this assertion, nor answer any of the detailed proof that con provides.
Thus; we’re faced with pro making an unsupported assertion vs con supporting evolution and the notion that plants evolved with facts: and the facts will win every time. Win to con.
Conduct awarded for the forfeits.
While pros argument had promise, and would have been interesting had it gone all 5 rounds; predicated on the idea that diversity is good due to the influence it has on individuals on children from various different demographics; while supported by a study that was challenged by con - two main components of cons case were unanswered by con: pros case that relating to archetypes are beneficial was challenged as inherently stereotypical - and the idea that it is presumptive to assume identification based only on race, where various other cultural factors could play in too. While I do t think these were strong arguments, they were unanswered; and as a result - arguments must go to con.
Full forfeit.
Concession
CVB omar2345
Full forfeit
Conduct - goes to con for the forfeit.
Arguments. I was pleasantly surprised for this one. Pros affirmative case dances around the true issue of personhood and rights. I find that the benefits of abortion only follow once you have established that the affording of personhood is not clear cut: on all counts, I felt that con made a good rebuttal in this vein: the benefits of abortion as laid out by pro were all pretty well covered by con, with most boiling down to the issues of taking a life and personhood.
To be fair; this portion of the debate could have been thrown away, as its inherently justified or not based on the other arguments presented.
Pro: you should really have started off with why killing is okay in this situation. Anything else is avoiding the elephant in the womb.
Cons case starts out strong and rigid appeal to human life. There’s a lot of syllogisms - too many imo - which makes it a little harder to weigh everything
Pros attack on whether judicial rights should be given was excellent by pointing out rights are no universal, but tend to be acquired by age.
I felt the NAP response was a little poorer - as con could easily say all those things should be banned: pro opened the door to a potential argument by trying to turn the NAP principle by arguing impacts on the woman - but it was a throwaway and lacking in enough detail:
Pro simply cast doubt on the moral impermissibility of killing a human - this was weaker imo, but could have had legs in subsequent rounds. The idea that we’re all pro choice - we just differ in who we feel it’s okay to kill - could have been pushed, but the issue is that innocent vs innocent comes into play.
Finally born vs unborn: pros example of embryos and fire is excellent at showing less vs more important humans - I would have liked to have seen this go further.
The abrupt end here stifled the debate: and imo on arguments alone, as con did not subsequently rebut, he didn’t leverage the forfeit to win arguments.
Thus far, the arguments were fairly well balanced as presented; however as the forfeit from pro inherently terminated the debate, and given the rules, I feel it unfair to penalize con for not posting the debate round as he was waiting for pro to return.
As a result: I will invoke the forfeit rule to merit the loss. Arguments to con, but this was a good debate by both.
Note: I would be interested in seeing what the types replies were!
Forfeit Rule. I have often enforced these rules when unchallenged. However pro challenged this rule and gave me a reason not to enforce it. Moreover, given the reasonable request from pro, cons denial constitutes poor sportsmanship, and so this balances itself out.
Arguments:
Pro argues that CMF is good as it promotes loving one another and being good to one another. This was unrefuted by conZ
Con argues homosexuality is considered immoral, pro argues that it is not part of the “law of love”. I do not find this particularly convincing, but it is unrefuted and unchallenged.
Con argues the bible indirectly supports slavery by citing some examples where the bible supports slaves honouring their owner - and this is inherently a bad thing. Pro argues this is merely a translation issue; remaining unrefuted and unchallenged by pro.
Con argues that women are not treated equally to men, and this is supported by a number of biblical quotes. Pro mainly argues a combination of context being incorrect, and that the meaning of these passages is actually different. I do not find everything pro said convincing, and I feel con could have obliterated this point in the next round, but con didn’t bother to refute.
In general, pro scraped through by the skin of his teeth, due to the arguments being dropped by con. It’s a bit of a shame, as I felt that many of pros points could have been easily dealt with.
While I appreciate the frustration of forfeits, and I am not penalizing con for suggesting that the forfeit rule be invoked, I do feel in this case, con should have continued the debate.
Con didn’t really provide any serious substantiated case, really just writing a cursory round, as required, and doing little to confirm it.
Cons case for 1/3/4 revolves around stocks not being available for investment in some way - and the detriment this would have. As pro pointed out in T2, C4; in the final round and highlighted in R3, this is not correct, and is somewhat misunderstanding.
In Cons round 3, con appears to suggest that outside owners cannot own more than 50% of the shares, and it must be considered 70% employee owned to constitute “worker owned”.
Pro outlines what “worker owned” means - that > 50 of voting stock is owned by workers; most importantly pro outlines both in his R2, but also at length in the description what “voting stocks” actually mean.
It seems con has misunderstood the description and pros argument: not grasping the difference between general “stocks” and “voting stocks”, despite it being pointed out by pro, and the description in detail
It seems pretty clear that pro is talking about a scenario where the controlling shares of the company are majority owned by workers; with a large volume of actual shares (which could dwarf the voting shares in numbers).
Given cons misunderstanding, his points 1/3/4 are largely irrelevant; as pro covered. Hedge funds and outside groups can invest heavily in companies - but will simply not be able to own a majority of voting stocks.
While I think there is an argument to be made there had con understood this issue, this was not generated within the debate, and as such cons argument seems to have clearly misunderstood the concept.
Cons final main point made was that of insider trading. Con argues that worker owned enterprises would lead to insider trading - it’s not exactly clear how or why he feels this is the case: he seems to indicate that organizations would remove a contract clause - but offers no evidence of why, or examples. As pro pointed out, worker owned organizations already exists, and these appear to have no legal issues - this seems pretty compelling that as such organizations exist without being shut down for inherent insider trading - it seems to appear that this final point is moot.
Pros case is pretty open and shut - at no point does con address anything pro said, and thus the entirety of pros case goes completely unchallenged; it is not a strategically wise move to put all eggs in one basket.
Pro provides key sources to show GDP improves with worker ownership, business
Failures decrease, and improved ability to weather changes due to offshoring, and automation.
None of these aspects were challenged In any way by con; so the benefits stand.
In general, even had con not wholly misunderstood the premise, this debate as down to facts presented by pro, and mostly opinion and assertion about what would happen by con; as a result; pro clearly wins on arguments.
Con should read carefully the debate description, and terms. Googling information to make sure he gets the detail. Also pro makes the mistake of presenting an unsourced, uncorroborated opinion. As this is a policy debate rather than a philosophy debate, that always puts you at a disadvantage ; and means your entire argument can be bought down by one or two small facts. Also, even if you’re 100% confident in the strength of your case - always rebut your opponent, if you make an error in your supporting argument, you won’t automatically lose; even if you don’t make an error, you run the risk of having your opponents sourced benefits outweighing your harms
Sources:
Con offered only two sources; simply listing hedge funds, and describing insider trading. That hedge funds exist does not show they would not invest, and showing insider trading is a law does not show it would occur - as such neither source help cons credibility.
Pros sources were clearly laid out, and highlighted how this debate was a fact vs opinion debate.
Pro cotes dive studies, Rutger, Now, a PIM metastudy, a research gate, and Jstor studies That Quantified and confirmed
his claims and general benefit of his plan.
On the one hand: pro has five scientific studies linked and cited to justify his claims; on the other, pro VERY emphatically stated “It is impractical and outrageous to assume this would benefit the economy”
The disparity in quality of sources and how they supported the individual sides warrant awarding source points.
All other points tied.
Conduct: Con has one more forefeit, and given that he didn’t engage in the content, the failure of this debate appears more related to cons action than pros; the content was odious from both, so balanced out.
Arguments: pro offered more of a rant than a justified, warranted position - there is not enough content above that of personal opinion (from either side) to warrant awarding argument points in this case. So arguments are awarded as a tie.
Full Forfeit.