Total votes: 689
Will it hurt the poor?
Both sides agree that it will hurt the poor, but pro claims it will not be by that much, con claims it would be significant.
Con substantiates how much it will hurt the poor, and states that it would constitute a 17% increase for them. I’m not convinced by the math, but the idea that the poor will be hurt by the tax is compelling.
Pro does almost nothing in justifying the primary premise and benefit of the tax - which is to change behaviour, there is no detailing of how practical it is, how the poor could change their behaviour and but healthier food to save money.
I fact pro doesn’t seem to actually offer any health benefits or intent behind the tax of any kind. This lack of clear objective benefit significantly harms pros case.
That it eliminates the income tax is likewise unwarranted. Pro doesn’t show how much it will take in, how much it would reduce income tax by, how how much it would reduce overall tax burden of everyone, and offers no real argument to support changing how people will be taxed will affect production.
Con points out that pros argument that the poor can simply work longer, is pretty outrageous and I have to agree with him, as this is clearly against basic intuition.
Cons best point however is that in situe with harming the poor: instead of allowing the poor to chose between a cheap and an expensive option - it makes them chose between two expensive options.
I didn’t really buy cons case about the junk food tax in the Netherlands - I think con needed to provide better rationale here, or simply rely on the point above.
All told; con gave me a relatively compelling harm: that the poor will be forced to spend more and this is on balance harmful. Pro gave no real compelling harm, and no real justified reason to implement the tax. Both the “only harms the poor a little”, and “it lowers income tax” were both unconvincing and unjustified: and both covered by con.
Saying this, con needs to focus more on the food security, food cost and food availability aspects of the tax for it to be compelling: imo.
As a result of the above, however, I have to give this one to con: as they showed the clear harm in the absence of a clear tangible benefit.
Full forfeit
https://www.debateart.com/debates/1116?open_tab=comments&comments_page=2&comment_number=44
Full forfeit
https://www.debateart.com/debates/950?open_tab=comments&comments_page=1&comment_number=40
Concession
So; to start with, pro offers a very light argument related to the need for reparations. Pro doesn’t offer any detail other than slavery and racism was bad, therefore reparations.
Con does very well to break down the practicalities. It’s impossible to work out who should get the money and who should pay: its too expensive, those deeply involved in the slave trade won’t pay due to where they are and that forcing those who had nothing to do with the slave trade themselves to pay is immoral.
Pro starts off with a reasonable argument: that the opportunity afforded to whites were based upon the opportunities ancestrally built upon by slaves. That if one were to accept that opportunity, one must accept the price that comes with it.
While that is a good argument: it doesn’t answer the central question: who exactly pays, how much and who gets paid.
Con outlined that reparations would be prohibitively expensive. Pro doesn’t disagree, and asserts hypocrisy relating to farmers receiving bailout money. This doesn’t follow; cons argument is that we can’t afford trillions of dollars in reparations - not that we can’t afford a few Bn. Con points this out, points out the benefits of such payments and also points out that pro hasn’t offered any justification for how reparations will help solve any of the problems
Con also points out that pro has not shown that he and his ancestors benefited from slavery - and thus is simply a bare assertion. Pro replies with a highly generalized reply about how slaves built the economy, but does not in my view provides cohesive explanation - con points this out.
In terms of warlords, pro doesn’t sufficiently answer why those involved in the slave trade but didn’t start it should not be included. Pro also asserts that con believes that other forms of reparations are acceptable - which he rejects.
The problem with this debate is that pro offers a notional argument, that the broad idea of reparations is valid. While this is probably true at a very high level, for the purposes of this debate, pro should be showing how much reparations would cost, how they would be paid for, who they would go to, and how much of an impact they would have on the world.
That way I can weigh the harm against the benefits, and draw a conclusion.
Pro doesn’t do any of this, and simply falls down onto the original notional premise, which is not enough; we can all agree that blacks have been substantially harmed by the US over time, and that policy should be enacted to help fix the systemic problem: but this doesn’t justify pros policy.
On the other hand - con does very well to address the practicality, the issues and the potential issues with reparations: in the absence of any tangible benefit that pro presents: this argument clearly wins out.
Arguments to con.
Full forfeit
Full forfeit
Do outlines a series of points of why the morality of the Bible should not be followed as a moral compass. These were all ignored by pro and must be accepted on their face..
Pros counter argument was irrelebant to the resolution - in that even if I accepted everything he said as true it did not show the resolution was correct. As a result, con clearly wins arguments.
For this debate, both sides should be showing me why I should vote for them, by showing the positives and negatives of OIT and showing why the negatives outweigh the positives : or vice versa. Pro here presents a very limited set of good things, pro provides a general list of bad things: but neither side do any comparison for why it is on balance good or bad.
Pro says it’s a cure for allergies, con claims its not a cure and has downsides: but I don’t know whether either sides ointsnoutwoegh the other because no one presents any real substantive analysis.
As a result, I will award this as a tie as neither side are able to affirm or refute the resolution.
Bit of a trolling kritik from con; but I’m going to award it anyway. Con points out that neither side can be considered hottest, and backs up his statement with a poll indicating that many others agree with him. The final round con continues this argument; with pro maintaining that one is hotter than the other effectively ignoring the key kritik.
The main point of contention is whether the Bible considers a fetus alive. Both sides appear to accept the validity of the majority of pros arguments, specifically that murder and the killing of innocents is outlawed; and it’s really whether the Bible treats the fetus this way that is important to the debate.
The main arguments pro makes to support this side is a variety of verses related to talking about being in the womb. This seems a fairly intuitive argument.
Con didn’t do a great job of refuting this. While I could notionally buy the idea that the bible is talking figuratively, con doesn’t really justify this too well; it does enough to muddy the waters, but not to overturn pros R1.
Con does much better, with a much more specific example where the law is used to show death of a child in the womb is treated as destruction of property in terms of punishment; if this is true it would basically bypass pros entire argument. So I would weight it strongly.
My issue with it, is that it appears to require the assumption the verse is talking about the mother solely : pro has this same issue and challenges the interpretation too.
Following on from this, pro mostly rejects the more spiritual and poetic interpretation of life in the womb, as con muddied the water, rather than refuted by his position pros response is okay - but I would have preferred a more direct rebuttal of cons contention in these points as opposed to more of a reaffirmation of the original position.
The next round con does much better - explicitly tying the bible verse, and the unharmed section to reference miscarriage. This is a major point, and pushes the bible into specifically referencing that the punishment for inducing a death of an unborn child is not a life for a life.
Con does something that is imo absurd: he drops the biggest and best argument he made. Con could have continued pushing this point and I would have probably bought it! But now I am forced to reject this as an argument. As pro used this argument to bolster his position too; that counts in his favour too.
From this I can render a verdict.
I didn’t spend too much time summarizing the remainder of the arguments other than in my opening as they appear to be largely talking across one another. Pro is taking verses talking about Gods interest and care for the unborn as literal, Con as figurative. While pros position does muddy the water; by offering a potential figurative alternative, I don’t think pro did enough to show these interpretations were all specifically figurative.
Given these, I have to come down on the side of pro on these points. I don’t feel pro must find some specific passage to claim the unborn are treated as humans - though he does use cons passage to this effect; imo he merely has to chose the Bible implies it, which he did with the multiple references to the womb.
As a result, arguments to pro.
No idea what that was: but con conceded in the final round: which luckily exempts me from having to work it out.
So, I haven’t seen either series, and have not watched much of any anime; so I’m coming at this from an entirely clean slate.
The first problem : is that I don’t know what the resolution is. Is it that Boruto is a good series? Or that the hate for it isn’t deserved? Its not clear, and no one tries to spell it out for people reading.
The second problem, is regardless of what the resolution is - neither side helps me by explaining how I should weigh or judged what makes a series “Good”.
This debate is near impossible to summarize accurately there are too many points, and too many references to a variety of points that I can’t really appreciate not having seen the series. While I’m reading, I can pick out the main threads, but it’s hard to recall draw much in the way of concrete conclusions on each minor point.
There was a lot of points made that didn’t really tie in with the resolution at all - it wasn’t clear how things like the hair colour recessiveness shows me how the series was validly hated. It’s really important for the debaters to never lose site of the resolution (at least for the purposes of Voting!)
Con points out that the series relies on gimmicks that were anachronistic, with less nuanced charters. That it was based from a series that was also a let down, and not great, that a character has more screen time than needed.
Pro argues that most of the hatred is based upon the prior series clouding or setting incorrect expectations for the series; though con claims its coasting on the popularity of the previous story.
There was much more to it than this, lots of counter explanations on minor points, that the gimmicks are okay, that they were Anachronistic: but due to no objective standard of good - there’s not much I can really weight even if I came down and decided one side was accurate.
The comparison con makes is probably the best and most relatable argument: buddy/angel - that the series isn’t standalone and it is coasting on the popularity of another series and another character, that Naruto appeared too much, and
The first few rounds were difficult to really parse: but with some of the points of agreement from R3 onwards it starts to get a bit easier.
The main construct that came out was that pro argues that the hate is coming from its ties to Naruto - and that is unfair. Con argues that being tied to Naruto was intentional; that you can’t tie the series to an older one - then expect it not to be judged by those standards.
This gives me almost an agreed standard between the two that leans me towards con.
Together with the explanation of gimmicks, that characters look the same and the villains and hero’s are less nuanced; I can surmise that at probably fair that Buroto wasn’t as good as the previous series - something that pro somewhat acknowledges.
The issue here, is that con suggests that the series should be tied together as they are billed that way: and presents some comparative claims between the two that pushes me in that direction.
It’s difficult to weigh anything else without either a standard to vote on, or comparisons against a standard. Both sides were mostly untethered and were arguing particular objective opinions. I would say con does a little better to try and set down objective criteria that pro; but the only argument that gives me an objective reason to come down on either side is the con argument about Naruto.
As a result, arguments to con.
Next time, I would encourage both sides to be more objective. To qualify their arguments against a standard that voters can measure in order to get a better vote.
Maybe someone who had seen any of the series mentioned could have made a better verdict: but I can only vote based on what’s provided here.
I can be sure that both sides appeared to have really enjoyed this debate.
Full forfeit
The first three rounds of this debate consisted of both sides throwing our various statistics.
This type of debate is wholly subjective, and the main single goal of both debaters from their first round is to specify and justify what exactly it is that makes one player better than the other.
Both sides clearly offer some compelling points; but even if accept everything both sides say, it is clear that Messi is better in some areas and Ronaldo is better than others. Neither side justifies why the broad set of facts as a whole make their player better than the other.
As a result of this; I can’t judge that either side showed their player is better, as they both seemed to assume their criteria was more valid than the others.
25% of this debate should be convincing me what makes one player better than the other, and 75% of this debate should have been big picture analysis of how facts, and stats show their player meets this criteria better than the other.
Without sound this, both sides arguments were unanchored and impossible to weigh.
Arguments: tied.
Conduct to con due to the forfeits.
Pro stars off his case quite straight forward. That there is no harm from Gay marriage, and that most objections are related to religion; which should not be used as a basis for the state to discriminate.
Con argues the state shouldn’t get in the way of some arbitrary behaviour - but this doesn’t mean the state needs to codify it.
Con also argues that homosexuality is harmful via setting bad examples. While I am willing to buy this arguments, con should quantify this.
Cons major argument is that the purpose of the state is to uphold relationships that help the survival of the state.
Pro points out the failure of cons argument - that the states in question aren’t simply allowing it, but not codifying it - they are outright making it illegal.
Secondly, pro rejects cons argument about the role of the state - that the goal of the state should be to serve its citizens.
Finally, cons argument here helps tie this one up for me; as he mostly undermines his resolution.
Con argues that homosexuals will not bring about the downfall of the state - and that its okay for the state to treat different types of relationship differently.
If I accept this; it does not provide any justification of why gay marriage should be illegal. The jump from simply allowing the state to promote one relationship over another to allowing them to make gay marriage illegal is too large not to be supported with justification.
From the second round, pro sets up the reason gay marriage should be legal, by stating the state should be supporting its citizens. From here con must provide a rebuttal showing a clear harm In allowing gay marriage to be illegal. As con doesn’t offer this tangible harm, I have to award this to pro.
Con round 1 is basically that Pride is being forced on people and that is causing substantial push back.
Con also argued that people are people and should be judged by their accomplishments and similarities not their differences.
While con set up this argument simply, and it could be easily knocked out of the park; pro largely ignored cons entire case.
Pro made a few assertions that gays shouldn’t have to bend for bigots; the middle paragraph of his opening seemed largely irrelevant to cons case: the finale was not much better, with con claiming that gay pride can only be beneficial with little reason I can see for him to conclude it.
I wanted to see a clear and concise explanation of what Pride is about, what relevance it has, and why the push back should be ignored.
Con continues by emphasizing that pride gives the impression it is trying to demand special treatment; and that as society is not yet fully ready, apparently for gay people - the open push of pride is a bad thing. To be honest this is all a bit of a stretch here and didn’t add much to the opening point.
The final round from con was more constructive, that pride should be about celebrating similarities; rather than aggressively highlighting differences.
Again - in the final round pro completely misses this point con was making; and produces two quotes that pro gives no context for, description of or associated argument. If pro doesn’t offer an argument, I can’t weigh the quotes as con is NOT debating against Chris Hanna.
I don’t think cons argument is great or even particularly valid; and to be clear I view this as a pretty typical boiler plate right wing argument hinges on misrepresentation , and one based on a position of largely ignorance that really doesn’t understand either the nature or detail of gay pride or the issues at work.
Saying this; pro had the easiest possible case to make that I would have accepted: use an equally boiler plate left wing argument to explain the history of pride, that it isn’t forced on society, and to express that the push back isn’t caused by pride, but caused by inherent bigotry that wouldn’t go away if gay people hide away - or any one of a number of trivial arguments he could have produced.
However pro does not do that, and mostly avoids making an argument that is relevant to cons case at all; or that even goes into any particularly depth on pride.
Because of this - I have to give this to con
I cannot really assess the content of the debate here - the resolution could be taken in two individual ways - that atheism is the best, or simply being pro atheism. Normally the debate has one reasonable interpretation and I am not sure that this is one of those cases. If I assume the respective resolutions of either side, they win: but as both sides are arguing different resolutions - it’s much harder to make a decision.
Even considering the usage of the word “best” pointed out by debaticus, I don’t beleive I can assess arguments here as there is nothing to highlight which of the two resolutions I should be assessing.
Thus, arguments tied.
Conduct to pro for the forfeit.
Con did better....
J/K: RfD in comments.
R1: a
love the minimalist feel, the slow mo and matching with the song was great: and the quiet build up really felt theatrical : 8
B: this reminded me of Royksop, love the down tempo and softer feel, struck a great emotional chord with me: 8
R2: alove me some MGS, great game, but Imo the trailer didn’t age well. The build up was great prior to the main drop, but the rest was a bit disjointed: 5
B: this brought back memories! The song is not the best Zelda song in my opinion, but it’s a nice soft tune that brings back some good memories! 7
R3: a) this was just a bit odd; kinds snazzy but get a little cookie cutter: 4
B.) this is a really unique song, very funky, kinda jazzy and not the type of thing I’ve heard year in any battle, this really grew on me, and made me think a little of a take on jamiraqui- I really, really liked this one! 9
R4a) build up was great, song was not: the build up and fight was good then kinda fizzles out: 5
R4b) average metal shouty track: goes well with the game style imo, but I can’t tell whether it’s a great song or not: 6
R5a) ugh Avril lavigne: 5
B.) Ugh Avril Lavigne: 5
Total: 62
R1: a: seemed a bit of a knock off of pros round 1 in terms of game feel, but the music seemed out of place with the song: 5
B: I heard this in another anime debate. I loved the feel of this, and the variations of tocata and fugue in d! 8
R2: a very theatric feel! This one went brilliantly with the music, the first major fight really synched up perfectly, but got a little more disjoint at the 2 minute mark. It peaked then and didn’t recover. Still great: 8
B: great song, really conjoured up the right feelings of emotion: 8
R3: a.) this was just an odd mash up. The song didn’t go with the visuals well at all; while the song was good, it was a terrible visualization: 3
B.) a nice middle of the road emotional song, hearing the low quality synth backing violin let the song down a bit for me; but wasn’t too bad: 7
R4: a) this did nothing for me at all. No context, no direction, visuals didn’t go well with the song, I’m not even sure what this was: 3
B.) this was just a rap song. There didn’t seem to be anything particular special, it wasn’t for anything in particular, nor was it an ost: it wasn’t that great so 6
R5a:) ugh another song that failed to sync up or match up in anyway with the video, it’s just a rap song and clips of vikings: 4
R5b nice dramatic theme, kinda cookie cutter basic attempt: it was good but not great: 7.
Total 59
Pro wins 62/59
Arguments:
Pro made an excellent argument based on Occams Razor; this was well explained, and laid the foundation for a good discussion. However, his opponentlargely ignored everything said and focused on whether the concept of God exists. Pro dealt with this in his opening round - and it was indeed covered in the debate terms and resolution. Aside from this, con didn’t really offer any arguments of note, and really just asserted that Occam was wrong and appears to be denying the existence and truth of anything.
This was not a good debate for con.
On the grounds of the arguments related to occam - which were unrefuted: arguments to con.
Conduct: pros obtuse and unnecessary arguments were infuriating to read, and were highly disrespectful to pro: he gave the appearance of simply trolling rather than getting involved in a detailed back and forth on the topic. As pro did his best to malign the intent of the debate and not take his opponent seriously, this warrants a violation of conduct too.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/994?open_tab=comments&comments_page=2&comment_number=14
“I forgot to read the resolution when I accepted this debate. Since this is my fault, you win.”
Concession.
Plagiarism, and forfeits are clearly unfair, and warrant conduct penalty.
For argument - plagiarized arguments cannot be counted as valid aruguments, and as a result, pro did not offer a single valid argument and thus fails to meet his burden of prooxZ by default this means con gets argument points too.
Counter vote bomb.
RM is clearly and intentionally grudge voting as he cut and pasted an RfD used against him in another debate.
Full forfeit
Pro Forfeited more than half the rounds conduct to con, and plagiarized both his openness not rounds. Given that Pro also plagiarized his only two rounds posted I cannot assess these as valid arguments, this must therefore be treated as if pro did not offer an argument at all, thus con gets arguments.
Snoopy takes a novel position; he is not arguing pro gun bans, but is arguing that Guns do not necessarily have a positive role to play. The exact specifics of his position however aren’t fully clear. As there is no specific data, and no detailed argument that can easily be assessed due to its more narrative style, it’s hatd to work out how to weigh this.
My main issue is that pros main point is that the statistics indicate that DGU is significant, while con makes a case that guns don’t help. Without reciting pros evidencd I can’t accept cons primary argument.
Con argues that non lethal means are preferable - as is training, de-escalation etc. Con doesn’t really justify how this can be generally effective. Con in reply provides just enough of an argument against it
I think Cons issue is that his argument was structure for a philosophical argument, on the forums; in the context of a debate, this type of argument that attempts to convince without facts don’t work very well when covering a non philosophical resolution: especially when the opponent has substantial facts to present.
As a result of the above, the real two key premises con presented that are easily weighable were refuted by pro. thus pro gets argument.
Conduct to pro for the forfeit.
This is pretty much open and shut: pro isn’t really making a moralistic or value judgement on abortion, but is analyzing the legislative validity of abortion.
The key arguments that show the law is legislatively bad - that it inherently violates the constitution, and that it implements third world policy due to lack of key exemptions are strong cases to support his burden - and these are not answered by con at any point.
Con primarily makes a moralistic argument concerning abortion, and spends a good deal of his position arguing definitions without a clear goal in mind- it doesn’t seem like any of the definitional arguments helped him support his side, and more seemed an attempt to simply argue against something con said.
Aside from this, cons arguments relating to law and morality are not sufficient to uphold his part of the resolution. A very generic argument about morality being required to support laws is not enough on its own to uphold his position. It’s immoral to cheat on your Wife/GF - but that on its own I not sufficient to make it illegal. Con had to construct a case to show why it’s illegal.
Worse, con repeatedly asked pro to justify whether Murder should be legal. For me, the issue I have here is that con is characterizing abortion as murder - the staying murder is currently illegal; this implicitly makes his case more confusing; and raises more question that he needs to answer : why is another law needed?
Con didn’t appear to specifically stick to the topic, and other than the fairly generic arguments made, did not warrant his portion of the resolution. Con had to show that the legislation was valid in reference to laws of the land, or serves some other purpose: he did not do so and pro showed the reverse.
Thus, arguments must go to pro.
Michael had the better of the rhyming, the rhymes were reasonable throughout and landed in his flow well, even though the broad structure was more simple.
RM went for the more complex structure and ended up being all over the place. RM had multiple fizzles and multiple cases of simply to force words to rhyme. With bitch - with, game in; vibratin and ingrate don’t rhyme no matter how you bold them.
Neither sides insults were brilliant, RM used his obligatory insults, I f**** your girl, I have a big dick, you suck it, using the word “cuck” and references to semen (one Harry Potter reference from RM rap battle bingo). Not particularly inventive or novel, and the whole core wasn’t particularly funny, or particularly cutting.
Both sides focused more on trying to make words rhyme than focusing on core insults or disses that landed 1-2-3 punches which meant a lot of the final drops felt out of place.
While RM had more insults, in general that were more profane, they weren’t substantively better than some of K’s more high brow references. Though they had their moments - Scrotum whack would have won on its own if used in a better build up.
Humourous and cutting insults, quality and complexity of rhymes (together with fizzles) followed by general flow (provided it doesn’t hinder my ability to follow rhymes) are primarily how I score these.
Given what I’ve said about insults, these are a tie, KM rhymes better and fewer fizzles and his rhyming pattern while simple, didn’t interfere with following his rhymes whilst RMs did.
This was kinda close, so I can’t really score this more than one point either way - but KM just edges this - by one point
Full forfeit - at least con posted.
In his opening round pro states the core portions of the bible that outlaw homosexuality - that they should be killed.
Cons case here is that the Bible teaches that sinners should not be reviled themselves, that while it maybe a sin, “Everyone” is a sinner and should not be judged. My main issue with cons case is that con claims the bible does not tell us to treat homosexuals differently.
Pro pointed out the bible commands that homosexuals be out to death. This seems a pretty clear cut “treating people differently”
Cons case here separates the bibles treatment of the sin from the sinner.
Pros response however, doesn’t do that: and argues that the sin should be shunned and people shouldn’t commit the sin, primarily: this misses the point of cons main premise, and con points this out in his next round. This goes back and forth on this with pro not addressing the key point that while the sin is bad, the sinner shouldn’t be reviled.
That is until the final round and a half where pro posts a quote from the comments without an associated argument talking about how the bible commands that homosexuals be murdered.
Con argues that everyone deserves death for their sins, and should not be judged. Reiterating his opening round. Pro - in his final round - points out that God commands homosexuals he murdered.
The difficulty for me here, is the murder part. Con did well to show the broad teaching of the bible doesn’t support the resolution - but this one point seems relatively clear, however pro doesn’t point it out until the last minute with no context.
Reading the resolution, while I think I could easily have gone with pros contention had it been more thrashed out and more topical to the resolution: cons case and examples did a better job of showing the bible commands people not to judge, that it’s no different from any other sin, and that all sinners deserve death. However, this was very close - and I could potentially have gone the other way there if pro had done more with the murder aspect
Arguments to con
Full forfeit.
Cons case is that Nukes are bad for the environment, and are devastating weapons.
Pros case is that their only documented use in warfare ended up saving lives overall, and the existence of nukes essentially help maintain the balance of power and prevent a more devastating conflict.
Pros case is dependent on a nuclear war never happening: if it could happen, cons case would take precedence.
Pro argues that the nuclear war is unlikely because of the inherent dangers and destruction caused by nuclear weapons. Cons case here breaks down a little - as he argues that nuclear weapons have almost caused a nuclear war. My issue is the almost, and con points this out: nukes can be thought to be a precipitating reason for the stand down.
My view of the two sides here is mainly that pros argument is that in balance nuclear weapons help reduce deaths by preventing wars. While there could have been more arguments surrounding whether that is necessarily true over a long enough time line: con doesn’t really raise or justify that.
As a result, the idea that nukes prevent deaths and are unlikely to be used is better justified by pro imo, thus pro wins.
Full forfeit
Sorry for the delay in posting - I normally favorited unvoted debates and missed this one
This argument mostly ended up as an argument over what the resolution meant.
The resolution here seems to indicate that violent revolution is to be considered just. If I take the reasonable interpretation of this, the idea is that the resolution requires the violent overthrow or uprising to be a fair and legitimate response to oppression. I think that would be how I would interpret the resolution as a contender.
Pro is arguing more a type of justice that is a measure of an appropriate reaction.
I tend to give the benefit of the doubt to the contender here; as they don’t know the subtleties of the resolution as well as the instigate
The case is essentially, that violent revolution often appears to be bloody, sprawling affairs that kill innocent people; what was excellent about cons case, is that he tied in the justification that it is inherent in violent revolution based upon what it is and how they operate.
Pros case is that they are the only means of eliminating existing oppression - even if they do end up causing more oppression. His case is that it’s also fair due to the government having the oppression visited upon them returned.
Pros rebuttal didn’t fully cover cons case here. I would have liked to see more of an explanation concerning deaths of innocents and the disproportionate violence towards part players that con elaborated on
Con continues by pointing out the benefit of non violent protest at effecting change over violent revolution - and again reiterates the harm.
I have issues with pros response - while I buy the concept that there’s not necessarily a way of overthrowing the government non violently, pro doesn’t really address the issue of loss of innocent life, and associated untargetted violence that comes with it. I’d be willing to agree if pro provided a weighting of the harms of the revolution against civilians, or to show examples of broadly fair revolutions.
Con provides a great contrast in the final round with non violent protest. While I don’t necessarily fully agree on the practicalities, this is a pretty well rounded point.
Pro mostly reiterated his underlying response.
So, let’s weigh this all up. I’m afraid I mostly side with pro in terms of the resolution in general: If a fair and reasonable revolution violently overthrew a government, this would meet the criteria, even if the end result ended up leading to worse. Cons case to explain the resolution wasn’t intuitive enough for me to accept. This is probably a formal vs online debate thing (so please bear that in mind!)
What I side with pro on - again, but only a little - is that pro must show the inherent justice in violent revolutions in general: I wouldn’t go so far as to say all, but I felt there was an onus to argue why many were fair. I would have accepted a theoretical argument (they could be just if done right) but things never went this way.
Pros issue is that while I would be prepared to buy that particular revolutions are or were just, the issue of the deaths and punishment of innocents that come with them was never weighted: while I would accept that punching a bully in the face is just - punching three innocent people and a bully needs justification - that was not forthcoming from pro, and for that reason I must award the debate to con.
Please not, con: some of the arguments for the resolution and meaning felt as if they were trying to make the debate harder for pro - without imo good reason, you had an excellent argument for innocents that could have won regardless of the resolution arguments.
Conduct - pro plagiarized without attribution the first two rounds. The third round, whilst attributed is still under the same umbrella as plagiarism. Taken all together it constitutes not just an attempt to make con argue against the person who wrote the source pro used as his argument - but also there were so many points that it is impossible for con to deal with them all. While the plagiarism is poor conduct, this is largely undermined by pros own dependents on quotations for his argument adding little of his own context to it. Saying this, the Gish Gallop and forfeit was outrageously unfair behaviour and clearly warrants conduct mark down in its own right
Arguments. Pro didn’t really make a central thesis here. It was primarily throwing a huge number of facts at con, without real context or organization to his stream of consciousness/copy pasting. There was little attempt to structure a compelling narrative by pro, if he had, pro may have done better, but as such there was little in the way of a compelling argument to adjudicate.
Con was also all over the place. The difference between his round and pros round - is that he quotes and cites his sources, whereas pro simply posted them. The key thing is that con doesn’t contextualize his argument based on these quotes : but offers them as his argument without his own contextualize thesis.
The issue with plagiarism is not the attribution as much as using a source to make an argument for you. Given that con and pro both use other people’s sources and information to support their own position and do so both to as substantial an extent as each other: I can’t really give this to con either.
If con had referenced this sources to justify a thesis he described and justified in his own word- he would have won. However, the central point of his argument are effectively to post a huge quote: then conclude the overall concept the quote was talking about was correct.
Further, the key points where he could have won outright - the point that gun control could work with enforcement/stings ; and that reduction in gun crime is not matched by an increase in others - was unsupported and unsourced. Again, pro is providing sourced indication that this is untrue
- in a debate, denying that it is true and not sourcing it, is always going to be a problem.
Given that no thesis was given by pro, and no real justification of his thesis other than depending on arguments via quotations
S&G: I thought about this, as con spent a lot of time with poorly worded sentences that made it very difficult to follow some points, but wasn’t substantially worse than normal.
Pro round1. Pro does not provide his burden of proof.
In his opening round, he shows some aspects of life appear to be non random. Even if accept this, it does not affirm the resolution. Intelligent != non random.
He also asserts that the reason the weasels skin changes in winter for aesthetics. He doesn’t support this point with an argument.
Cons rebuttal was to point this out - but also to point out the optimal generated traits of evolution, and to explain that life is rarely optimal and contains a number of examples where life appears not to be intelligently designed.
Pro throws out a long list of examples of coincidental positive things - which con points out is cherry picking given the non optimality.
He doesn’t address the main issue of key flaws in life. A majority of his response is simply a denial of the examples brought by con.
The rest of the debate was much of the same - pro simply re-iterating his argument, and con pointing out that there are still flaws.
What it comes down to here - is that not only does pro not sufficiently warrant his claims by clearly explaining the properties of life, and why they necessarily require a creator - but pro clearly shows pro is cherry picking, with key counter examples, and examples of cases where even pros own arguments do not hold true regarding poisonous food and the DNA repair system being insufficient. Pros only response is to beg the question - and effectively highlights the circularity of his position.
Given this, I cant accept pros argument as sufficient to meet his burden.
From an evolutionary standpoint - I would have liked con to have done more to express the validity of evolution: and to address in some limited sense the issues about evolution presented by con - but this was mostly a secondary point, and didn’t effect the outcome.
It’s important to stress though, as if con was up against someone better, leaving a key point unaddressed can be tactically dangerous.
With this being said, as imo pro has the burden, and didn’t meat it - arguments to con.
Conduct: pro appeared to focus primarily on overloading his opponent with examples rather than focusing on providing a justification for those claims. When your reasoning is largely assertion, the voluminous examples mean that con has no chance to address everything rendering most of pros case a Gish Gallop.
This attempt to overload his opponent without appropriately justifying his points is clearly substantially disrespectful and warrants a conduct violation.
vinnie Paz: not quite my cup of tea. It was okay, but didn’t really resonate for me: 5
Bird set free: I quite like sia, but this is not really my favourite sia song by my means, nor is it as emotional as others. While it’s good, it’s still missing something on that chorus; 7
Therapy session: not a fan of rap, and again: not a genre that really resonates. I didn’t think this was as good as the VP one pro out in R1: 3.
When we were young: much better, but like the sia example, you could have picked so many better examples. This was good from Adele, but it wasn’t exactly rolling in the deep, or set fire to the rain. It was about the same for me as the sia example: 7
Run: better, loved the chorus, felt that it resonated a bit better than the other rap examples: 7
Total: 29
Just a dream: seemed pretty commercial emotional music. Nothing raised it up above average: 5
She wolf: you’d have gotten a 10 for titanium. This one is not nearly as good. I love the song, and think the lower pitch is key for sia to unlock more of an emotional range, so I still think this one was pretty good: 8
Airplanes: rap again. The chorus helped a little bit - but it’s on par with cons r1: 5
Hope - LDR: just a generally sad song, but nothing really lifted it out of the general sad feeling into a true great: 7
You can be king again: I quite liked this one, though I always like quirky soprano. Very much like the LDR example though, nothing lifted it above good into great: 7
Total: 32
29 vs 32 - goes to con.
Full forfeit