Total votes: 689
https://www.debateart.com/debates/922?open_tab=comments&comments_page=1&comment_number=10
Con wins 176/170
PLEASE CHECK MY MATHS
Concession.
Full forfeit both sides
Forfeit. I don’t have time to listen to 90 minutes of rap music - so I can’t really assess arguments
Welcome to Marc.
Cons opens, with a fairly concise argument that emotion and can blur individuals reasoning when it comes to facts, and that people rely too much on emotion rather than facts.
Pros counter argument is orthogonal - that emotions, give us the drive and quest for knowledge, and inherently gives truth value and meaning - without which knowledge is effectively meaningless.
In the following round, con puts some meat on the bones, by showing some impact of emotions on our society, specifically with vaccine hesitancy, conspiracies, etc.
At this point, pro and con are both somewhat arguing across each other. Cons argument is valid that emotion when it comes to determining facts is detrimental: but pros case is that while this is true - emotion is what in itself gives facts and truth meaning.
Both sides appear to argue that the other side should be arguing their position - and thus is always tricky to judge.
Reading the resolution: I think pros interpretation is more fair an interpretation of the resolution as written (note to con - it’s often important be 100% explicit exactly what the resolution is).
Importantly even if I assume cons contention and resolution is correct, I think pros argument still fits in with that - that while emotion maybe detrimental to quality, facts do care about your feelings given that they’re given value by them as con points out. While this is in the ball park of a kritik, I feel it’s a valid one.
For this reason, I think pro edges this debate in both resolution. Thus arguments to pro.
Concession.
From the perspective of feedback, cons framing was excellent. For pro, only premise 1 and 2 are really the only ones that can attack the resolution: as the remainder (with the exception of maybe 3), are all items predicated on assuming that an unborn child shouldn’t be treated like a person. The main thrust of the arguments should likely have been relayed to these first two points, as cons framing of the unborn child deserving the rights of a person in its own right was very strong, and Trumps almost every practicality listed.
Full forfeit.
Counter Vote Bomb.
The arena: this was okay, let down by production quality a little which took away from the song, the acoustics of the room, and the piano volume compared to the violin (which rarely sounds good in isolation at that pitch) Lets this one down.6
Creep. This was a reasonable song. I’ve heard many acoustic covers of this; this is what let it down. The whole song for me, is about the transition from soft and tender to utter despair. This song loses that for me, I can’t not compare it to Thom Yorke, no matter how I try. 6
Didn’t know you. Against this is a goodish song but didn’t quite fizz: there’s no X factor I felt in this song that raises it above. It’s more of a regular okay song played acoustically : 6
Faded: better.... this is a good piano cover that reminds me of the uk waitrose add cover of power of love. This has a bit more to it than the others, and is a more compelling song as a result of the acoustic unplugged feel: 8.
Zombie: I’m so torn here. The song is great, but the cello? Ugh! It was played well, and the cellist was amazing, the song was super popular, but as the cello can’t help but have gaps in it when the cellist changes direction it makes it feels like the song has holes, so it was both good, but felt more empty and stilted in places as a result: 7
Pro:35
Dream on: this was a great song, better production, and well sung. It didn’t really fizz for me though, nothing that made me really drop my jaw: 7
Shut up and dance: this just sounds like they sang shut up and dance during a power cut. My issue with this is that the acoustic version doesn’t add anything nor plays to the acoustic nature of the song: 6
Sometone to you: this song again falls foul of a similar problem to the others, feeling like an average song simply played acoustically. I think this one is a bit better than some of the others, but I can’t give it more than a: 6
Be alright: much better from con here too. This song plays to the acoustic nature better too. I much prefer the voice quality with the piano here - which I find is so much better for acoustic songs. It’s not as good as pros last round: 7
I can’t help: wow. Left field. This was close to acapella. But this is so different from the original in style that it helps the song. The lack of any major instrumentation for me emphases TJs more gravely voice; and I don’t know exactly why his voice works so well with this song, but it does. I really liked the fit here: 8
Con: 34
Pro wins: 35-34
Pro:
Saints: loved the epic feel, didn’t seem let down by the slow pace, which is normally the undoing of this style of track. The dramatic quality was very movie score like, but it had a lot going for it: 8.
Too late: identical theatrical style to the previous. The build up was as good, but the drop wasn’t as epic or climactic as the last one. 7
New Drug: the build up felt like a modern take on a track lifted from Jilted Generation. I really loved the build up, but the drop didn’t match the build up. The intricacy Of the start, of matched up with the climactic drops of the first two tracks would have been an easy 10; but I felt the drop let this one down, and left me feeling disappointed: 6
Stay the same: This was a reasonably good track. I wouldn’t scream home about it, but the bassy feel of the drop fit well with the more minimalistic vocals. I find when a song is stripped down of complex layers like this - you need an epic hook up build the song around: while the hook was interesting, it wasn’t memorable enough to carry the song, leaving this one a good track but nothing to push it over the edge to great: 7.
Love me less: so this isn’t the what I think of when I think EDM, but it is still technically there. For me EDM is about the atmosphere of the song, the build up, the drop and the layering. The atmosphere was more of a mainstream song, there wasn’t really a build up drop or layers to it. The song was catchy, but this really didn’t zing for me at all: 6.
Pro: 34
Con:
Decoy world: epic. The intricate repeats and variations in the chorus is everything I love about EDM, and while I think it would have been better with a faster drum track - I really enjoyed the build up and break down. The catchiness was a bit lower than many other tracks I’ve heard, which together with the lack of pounding bass is what makes me drop this one short, but it didn’t feel out of place as some low tempo songs so, so I’ll drop only one point: 9
Infinite: i started off unimpressed by this one, but with the noise cancelling earphones, the drop was intense. I absolutely loved the intricacy in the main drop. This is one place where the slow tempo (have I mentioned this is not normally my thing??) made this track, by emphasizing the different layers by slowing the song down. I downloaded this one for my workout list. Really good. 10
Heartbeat: right off the bat the build up starts perfectly. When the doubled up bass hits, the gain in tempo matches the voice really well. The song changes feel three times very subtly in the build up all the way to the end. If there was a musical equivalent of epic blue balls - that drop was it. I will be honest, I’m not a fan of slow drops like this over any genre, but this was a real let down. The build up was epic: 6
Our fragment: this has much the same feel as the last song, a great build up (but not as epic as the last), and I was nodding my head waiting to be disappointed - by was pleasantly surprised. The drop here while lower tempo fit the build up; there wasn’t a big pro drop, the song blended it, but it the lack of a huge drop mostly fit well. The layers and intricate patterns in the chorus are my jam, and these give me something to focus on. This wasn’t as good as the last skrux, but I can see it as good as saints by pro: 8
You’re on: I’m normally a fan of madeon - but I wasn’t a big fan of this. It’s more of a poppy mainstream one that doesn’t focus on the elements of EDM in the same ways
Pros didn’t. It was enjoyable, but felt like it should be the music at the end of a mario kart round. It was just ok: 5.
Con: 38
Con wins 34-38
Wow. Excellent debate by pro here, and probably one of the more one sided examples I’ve seen.
On the case of Occams Razor, pro outlines his arguments, and spends the remaining time correcting cons mischaracterization or misunderstanding on its premise. The best part of this for me, is the way pro links likelihood using the razor. He specifically outlined the main reason the razor sets up the likelihood of God based on its pressuppositons. Con was never able to respond due to forfeits.
Cons argument, the argument from creation was dismantled by pro as both special pleading and outlined as a text book example of fallacy of composition. The winning element was that con relies on a non contingent entity being God for no reason. This was excellently explained by con and con again was not able to respond, the final round was mostly ignored as it was primarily a new argument, and the only relevant part was not fully clear how it ties in.
As a result. Pro both affirmed his side and negated his opponents.
Arguments to pro.
Conduct to pro for the forfeit
Full forfeit.
This was much closer than it should have been.
Pros entire argument, put charitably is made up of arguing that there isn’t a great explanation, or that there are unknowns related to a naturalistic origin of life, and that the apparent matching of organisms to their environment, together with ways in which the environment and natural objects can benefit humans is evidence for a divine creator.
This on its face meets initial burden of proof but only due to it seeming a reasonably intuitive proposition. The argument itself doesn’t seem strong, and appears a clear argument from ignorance
Cons follow up, with a short explanation of evolution; this argument is minimal and doesn’t go into a great deal of detail, but does appear to answer at a high level pros contention.
IE: if pro doesn’t know why these aspects of life can originate, the well accepted theory of evolution is a valid explanation.
The remainder of pros argument is largely the same, and is answered by cons opening argument.
With the exception of where pro argues that evolution is a failed theory, with made up frauds.
Con completely drops this argument and doesn’t reference it at all, and simply resorts to saying his opening arguments apply.
Con does dodge a bullet here, however, as pro doesn’t really go into any depth or provide explanation as to why these examples negate evolution as a whole: in my view even if accept the individual points, or doesn’t invalidate evolution. If pro had explained why evolution should be thrown out based on these examples - then con would have lost.
As pro doesn’t offer a substantial argument to overturn the explanation of evolution - even though that explanation wasn’t particularly detailed, or justified: evolution holds, and arguments go to con.
Conduct to con for the forfeit.
This was a trivial decision as pro didn’t raeally turn up to the debate.
The KCA, the moral argument, and proof of Jesus Divinity were cons main arguments, he elaborated these well; and they are inherently intuited to understand. Their framing means that con meets the initial burden of proof.
Pros response was initially a non-response that didn’t dig or delve into cons argument, or provide an elaboration on why con was wrong.
Pros r3 response wasn’t much better, and didn’t crystallize any argument or point that allowed me to determine what aspect of cons position was wrong, a throwaway kind about cyclic universes, and a dismissive reference to acquiring morality isn’t sufficient to overturn pros point.
Round 4 was completely unrelated to any points made by con. And R5 was forfeited. This means pro dis. It provide his burden of proof at any point.
Con on the other hand extended, and reiterated his points, and as such his initial rounds were upheld due to lack of challenge.
The win goes to con as a result.
The title and opening section of the description states:
“Is Daylight Saving Time Still Relevant
I believe that DST has become anachronistic.”
It also goes on to state:
“Do not troll me, and make sure you are aware what being Pro entails.”
Given the title and description, I don’t believe there is any ambiguity in the resolution whatsoever, and pro satisfies his burden of proof in the opening round.
Given that the resolution was clear, it seemed obvious what being pro entailed, and given that there doesn’t seem to be any specific attempt to argue a truism, argue in bad faith or trap the opponent, I don’t see any necessity for the definitions or rules to change - and
Certainly neither side provides one.
Pro - instead of arguing the resolution by arguing that Daylght Savings serves some useful purpose goes full-on semantic; and effectively trolls con by arguing in a completely left field and absurd way.
Given this, pro can simply demand I overturn a clearly defined resolution for no apparent reason.
Pro makes this even easier by copying and pasting a definition of “relevant” that even includes the correct and meaningful interpretation: “correct or suitable for a particular purpose:”, so its not even certain which particular definition he was talking about.
Given that the semantic argument was botched by the misquote, that it falls under the umbrella of trolling that is covered by the terms of the debate, and Pro gives me little good reason why I should not use standard definitions, nor points out why or how there is ambiguity, pro loses arguments on all those grounds - two of them would have led me to award arguments out right.
Arguments to con.
Conduct: ridiculous, bad faith, semantic arguments are toxic to online debate, as in the search for cheap points such an argument severely reduces people’s motivations for participating: why engage in good faith debate if some ****** will just jump in and troll you with some ridiculous definition. While con gets a bit flustered at this approach, it’s understandable - as such behaviour by pro is antithetical to a fun and Interesting debate experience, and it is understandable that frustration at these people engaging in these sort of unfair tactics.
As a result of this extremely obnoxious behaviour : conduct to con.
There’s not a lot here for me to vote on.
The biggest and most compelling argument is that dub is much easier and less distracting. This seems a pretty obvious and straightforward case.
Pro doesn’t really deny this - and agrees but specifies that ease is not part of his standard.
The translation is not a compelling argument for me - I can’t see how a translator would come up with a different translation when preparing for sub/dub.
Sound, seems mostly to be depending on which example. Con uses an example of Death note where the dub provides a better context and emotion than the sub did. While this suffers from much the same issue as the issue with translation (it could be either good or bad), the same goes for the reverse case pro raised that things are lost in the original voices
The technical benefits here raised by both don’t seem massively compelling, so I’m left to cons main case of being simpler to watch. Con spells our very well the key issues here related to easy; pro didn’t do enough to spell out the technical benefits of watching subtitles despite it being harder to follow, thus does not overturn ease for me.
As a result, the only one with a key positive case is con: arguments to con.
So, the arguments are technical arguments based primarily on interpretation and translations of particular words.
The examples cited are the four corners of the globe, some basic references to turning the world upside down, a tree being visible, and the earth being a circle.
The four corners point is explained by pro through translation issues - and dropped by con who mostly just dismissed the point with a generic argument about speculation.
Some are dealt with by the example being a dream.
The final was the definition of circle potentially being a sphere. While con made a tentative attempt to argue this had a different translations pros case was pretty evidence that it could mean encompass.
Con did not present any clear and unambiguous example where the earth was flat - and largely drops pros entire case.
The rest of cons case was primarily ranting, that didn’t appear particular connected to the resolution or pros argument.
Arguments to con.
Conduct.
“Furthermore, your debate title will come back and bite you in your Satanic ass”
“DR. FRANKLIN, LET US BEGIN YOUR DEVIL SPEAK BLOODBATH:”
“Not known to the bible ignorant Dr. Franklin at this time”
“GET IT? MAYBE?”
“DO YOU NEED A 1ST GRADER TO EXPLAIN IT TO YOU?
“HELLO, ANYBODY HOME TODAY DR. FRANKLIN?! OBVIOUSLY NOT!”
Cons language and disrespect is frequent, repeated and odious throughout : the above was only a couple of examples from only the first two rounds.
Pro gets a bit tetchy at points which is understandable given the onslaught of insults and belittling - but never comes close to matching cons level of toxicity and disrespect.
As a result, cons clearly deserves the conduct penalty. Conduct to pro.
Don’t know how to score this, so I’m just going to go with how strong of an emotional reaction I have. 10 being full on goosebumps.
Pros
Need you now: 6
You said you’d grow old with me: 5
Hold on: 6
Neon gravestones: 8 (background of the chorus was great)
Kitchen sink: 9 - love 21P. This was a great live version
Total: 34
Con:
Barbers adagio. Simply said, 10. Love this song
Human: 9. Chorus makes this pretty powerful.
Landslide: 4. Didn’t do it for me.
In the arms of an angel: 8. Sarah M is amazing for emotional songs.
Schindler’s list: 9. Great song, violin is really amazing in this.
Total: 40
Win for con.
Full forfeit
As normal abortion debates are almost invariably about whether an unborn child at some level can be afforded the right to life.
The remaining practicality that pro and con largely talk about flow from proving their inherent burden. For example, number of kids waiting for adoption is largely irrelevant - you wouldn’t murder the kids if there were too many waiting for adoption, so why would you before they were born?
The issue here, is who does a better job of convincing me an unborn fetus. has the right to life?
Pros main opening argument largely ducks this, and spends only a short time talking about the properties of the fetus being different.
The entire debate should be on personhood, and qualifying the rights of the woman and her body vs that of an unborn child, why womens - or anyone’s - ability to control and be master of their own body and what happens to it - should be a paramount point in a land of personal freedom, irrespective of what that entails.
The set up by pro on the properties of a fetus was clunky and focused on odd properties (breathing, cared for), and was easy batted away by con, by giving multiple other examples of individuals in a situations such as a coma. Pro doesn’t really recover from here and lets con dictate that appeal to intuition about the right to life.
While con doesn’t offer anything more to this appeal to intuition, pros properties for why he feels the unborn do not earn the right to life were naive, oversimplifying, and trumped easily by con.
On these grounds I have to accept that fetuses have the right to the life. As pro doesn’t show why his implications for adoption, or any others outweighs this right to life, I have to side with con on arguments.
On this emotive subject. It’s often the con case that is better able to express their objection, pro often implicitly rather than explicitly talks about the real issue and justification, which often means that those taking pro position here have a tougher time, and focus more on irrelevant side notes than proving their contention. Unfortunate this was the same here.
Arguments to con.
Full forfeit.
Pro forfeited most of the rounds. Conduct to con.
Pro doesn’t really offer an argument. Con offers the key point that evolution can be responsible for morality. While short, this is the starting point of the argument, and beyond this pro didn’t offer an argument: so cons points stand unrefuted - thus arguments must go to con too.
Pro has the burden proof here. To start off with pro doesn’t really define the terms. He uses the word invaders, and foreigners interchangeably, and is using definitions more on the grounds of being emotive than to elaborate on what he means. Con picks this up.
I’m going to analyze this purely in terms of harms.
Pro argues that there is no benefit of having foreigners present. This is not in itself a reason to deport them.
Cons primary harm shown (appeal to fairness is not imo a harm, nor is whataboutism), is mostly arguing that it would constitute breaking 2 million families that themselves did nothing wrong.
Pro continues with exploring some of the unfairness in South Africa specifically, but doesn’t really link this to any benefit of
Deporting foreigners. At best it’s implicit. Talking about historical wrongs and murders is largely non-topical. It all could be true but wouldn’t change whether or not it’s better to deport non whites.
In his response; con goes back and forth on the irrelevant tangents pro raised.
However, con does point out that it is unfair for punishment to be levied on individuals just because they’re the same race. This is a follow on from his initial harm.
In round 3/4/5, pro and con both continue with the points that neither show harm in allowing foreigners to remain, or benefit in departing them. Rehashing grievance is not a harm, and going back and forward debating the harms of colonialism or deportating black people from the US is meaningless.
It all boils down to one harm on each side. Pro argues that effectively removing foreigners will give resources to black people, con argues that’s wrong because they haven’t done anything wrong themselves.
While I’m sympathetic to the overall inequality and colonial repercussion: pro clearly opts for an extreme solution, which seems to be on balance harmful.
Pro and con spent the overwhelming majority of the debate arguing about unrelated and non topical points, imo, and as such, I have maybe two reasonable sentences that really were relevant in the decision. However, cons argument was more intuitive, more objective and more quantifiable - and as such I must award him arguments
Full forfeit
Firstly, conduct to con for pros forfeit.
Arguments: this debate appeared to fall down to whether the Bible treats unborn children as “people” with associated rights (and applicability of being killed).
Pro cites an example of when life appears begins that God knew them in the womb. He uses this to show that God considers individuals people in the womb.
Pro also cites examples of punishment for those hurting the unborn.
These appear valid.
Pro also mentions an account from numbers which he claims is just a how-to guide not an example of approving abortion. Con also appears to discount this point as irrelevant.
Con cites some examples of the Bible implying that life begins when breathed; but the best rebuttal con has is the punishment for injuring an unborn child is a fine - strongly indicating it is not considered murder.
There was a lot of back and forth here on the notion of whether “breathing” constitutes life, and in this I largely side with pro - on the grounds that it appears largely open to interpretation.
The issue relating to whether God knows someone I the womb, I side with con - it seems that the most valid interpretation is that it’s an overall knowledge, a timeless knowledge.
However, as con pointed out, the crux and tiebreaker here was the harm to an unborn child. While pro uses this to elaborate on this point, the matter of fining for a death considering that if the child was considered a life it should be death, was the clearest indication that a baby couldn’t be considered a live - and the notion that though shalt not kill applies is redundant. It was never addressed by pro.
I feel this point hands the argument to con; even using the stricter interpretation of pro due to the apparent lack of ambiguity.
Pros last raised issue about tattoos doesn’t seem to follow as con outlines. It appeared to be cuts for the dead, nor cuts in general; the lack of context makes me unable to side with pro.
Full forfeit.
Con forfeited more than half the rounds. Conduct to con.
Pro clearly specified why abortion wasn’t constitutional. Specifically because it isn’t written in the constitution. This set up a nice easy softball for pro to bat out of the park simply by stating the text of the 9th amendment, and explaining that the role of the Supreme Court is to judge whether particular laws are constitutional or not; he could have simply stated, that the constitution empowered the Supreme Court to determine whether the right to privacy includes the right to Abortion (which they did), this in all respects this is constitution. There were a trillion ways this could have been argued, but Pro decided to take a bizarre approach and point of the rights outlined in the constitution makes abortion legal. This barely makes any sense to me, and certainly doesn’t qualify as a rebuttal of pros point.
However - it want refuted and given how little argument pro actually made - I’m not going to award points for arguments as neither side managed to refute each other, and there was not enough back and forth to be able to come up with any sort of weighting.
Full firfeit
Classy concession.
Concession
Con outlined a series of statistical evidence that outline his position for why athletes shouldn’t take a knee: specifically given that he claims racial driven disparities don’t exist. While this feels like con strips out much of the context and doesn’t provide a full summary of the data, I have to accept this point pending rebuttal.
The remaining points don’t appear to have a good argument supporting them, and do not appear explicitly linked to the resolution: so i won’t anaylze them further.
Pros issue here is that he attacks cons data, which appears valid, rather than attacking the context of the data. This undermines pros position as it allows con to build up an appearance of legitimacy - pro needs to outline the bigger picture, to contextualize all the data. Instead of a broad and robust argument, the debate quickly deteriorated into the weeds, becoming a he said/she said argument surrounding who did what and when. None of this was able to move the needle away from con - due to the implicit lack of real context from the data as a whole I was given by pro, I can only score based on the context con gives me.
I feel pro quickly went off topic, lost site of the resolution and was far too passionate and emotionally engaged into the core of the argument, rather than focusing on the resolution.
Given this, pros focus on individual cases and questioning the statistics pushed me further into cons direction: without a clear bigger picture and working in raw stats alone, I have to give this one to con.
This debate was completely nuts. I can’t even begin to figure out how to score it. I’m going to award it to RM on the grounds that he sounds 100% less like Type1 than Sparrow does...
I find this debate a little frustrating.
Pro lists specific examples of harms against the world, and society. It con accepts this, and largely accepts issues of privilege, generalized racism, etc.
Con frames the argument fairly succinctly. He attributes these actions to be due to them being the group in power. Not necessarily the fact that they were white. Con gives some specific example (such as the Rwandan genocide and others), relating to social power dynamics.
Pro mostly and validity cites accurate statistics about atrocities and crimes of whites, but falls foul of this framing.
Given that the resolution appears related to the whiteness of the individuals, given the description, and cons argument that frames it, I have to side with cons framing:
Everything pro said was true - yet it doesn’t show the resolution as con framed it, as pro appears to attribute it to whiteness not the power dynamic issues.
In these debate, the instigator needs to be super explicit in terms of what the resolution means, and whenever challenged they must staunchly defend that resolution: in this case, con made a better appear to the reasonable interpretation of the resolution and as a result, I must award arguments to con.
To be honest, acoustic isn’t my thing, so I’m scoring pretty subjectively, it’s hard to really grade what I felt stood out or not either. So I’m just going to score plain points.
Pro:
Wild horses: 7: Not my favourite stones song, but I really do like this version
Hold back the River: 5, this one didn’t do much for me
Landslide: 6. was a bit meh, but I much prefer the vocals, though They raised up the song a little over hold back the river
Survivor: 8. Very clever song, recognizable but still with its own character
Unchained Melody : 7, I actually hate this song In general , but thought the cover was pretty decent considering.
Total 33
First time: 4. This one was okay, I felt myself tuning out, felt like it was an smoosh pop love song (like a thousand miles)
7 years: 5 not sure this is quite what I view as acoustic to be honest; I mostly liked the song, but am scoring it down for being a bit out of place
I’m still standing: 5. Again, good cover; not what I would classify as acoustic.
Let it go: 5. I have to say I don’t like this guys voice much.
Love someone: 7. Nice chilled song I thought this was pretty decent.
Total: 26
Pro wins.
Full forfeit
Full forfeit
Full Forfeit
Full forfeit
Conduct for the forfeit.
This debate boils down to whether the previous examples of killings by Daenerys constitute enough that what was done in kings landinf was merely an extension. There was not a lot of time spent explaining the general background of what happened prior to kings landing to motivating Daenerys, but I think con does enough regardless.
The issue con presents is that Daenerys was vicious, often revenge driven and didn’t consider collateral. The example of the father slaver crucified and her reaction spelt that out to me.
Pros defence was really that all these people deserved it so aren’t the same. The issue as con points out is that Daenerys seemed less driven by justice than by revenge - the issue at Qaarth council, and threats to burn cities to the ground ties into this fairly well.
The only real argument of note was chaining her dragon for killing an innocent girl. Cons argument that she has killed without remorse was a key point here; this wins out and paints the picture that Dani is Generally good, but gets into fits of revenge.
Given this, con manages to paint a pattern of vicious behaviour by Danerys, and contrasts this behaviour (such as with Greyworm). While the reaction was extreme and not a great execution of story, con does enough to show this is broadly within her character and has been building over multiple series.
Arguments to con.
Concession
So, let’s start with the charlottsville rally.
While this goes back and forth. At the end, pro is able to provide evidence that the “rally” Trump was referring to was not simply protesting the statue being removed, but was a white supremacist rally. While con simply denied this, pro sources this claim.
Given who Trump was referring to, and that he appeared to be specifically referencing a night when alt right protesters were shouting Jews will not replace us, this seems fairly clear cut.
This clarification makes the nature of the full quote more ambiguous - was he simply down playing the white supremacism and Neo Nazis in the crowd? This seems to clearly cast down on cons interpretation, and I have to side with con.
In terms of retweeting white nationalists - pro offered clear cut evidence of the present repeatedly retweeting white nationalists. In so doing, pro indicates a pattern of association and support. I find cons defence severely lacking here, he does not offer much of at all to downplay the significance or explain how this could occur without tacit support - with groups that trump should know better than to retweet. I have to side with pro here too.
Pro offers specific, but old example of racist actions taken by trump in his apartments, while not much space is dedicated this seems fairly clear cut - that Trump instructed employees not to allow black individuals - his source shows this was specifically black individuals, not just people on welfare. Con drops this point, thus this goes to pro too.
For Mexicans are rapists, in cons favour was that Trump appeared to be referencing illegal immigrants, what is in pros favour was that he showed almost everything that was said, by Trump. Con appears to drop all of these points. This leaves me with Trump talking about Mexican immigrants, grossly exaggerated. This isn’t wholly to pro, but mostly.
Muslim ban: not much space was dedicated to this, but pro argued trump banned Muslims despite Americans commiting more terrorist acts: this implies a cleat animus towards Muslims - though pro didn’t fully hash out why he believes Muslim has a racial component. So this doesn’t go to pro.
On cons side, con argues that racism isn’t increasing, that Trump isn’t harming blacks: pro gives a good explanation of relevance here: the argument is that Trump is a racist personally, rather than like Hitler, where he was racist in terms of policy - the two are not the same.
Claims about Obama’s or democrats being racist may or may not be true - but don’t effect the resolution.
Other than this there were a few smaller minor claims that were worth little mention as the big claims validate the resolution on their own even if I were to accept or reject the rest.
Because of the clear pattern of behaviour on multiple fronts that were shown by pro - pro clearly demonstrate a pattern of racism and so arguments go to pro.
Sources: these also go to pro. Pros main claims were backed up by sources, vox for unite the right clearly showed his position was accurate and undermined cons counter - con claim what pro was saying was untrue despite it being validated by this source.
The racist apartment offering tore apart cons counter claim that Trump wasn’t racist by demonstrating that action was being taken against blacks - not specifically those on welfare.
These two sources fundamentally undermined cons only counter argument, and clearly bolstered the warrant of pros argument substantially. Con offered minimal sourcing, on largely redundant points (such as stats about racial economic benefits), so largely had no effect on his overall warrant.
This was actually a really interesting debate. I would say that both sides did very well here in framing the outline of their argument.
For me, this boils down to whether con can find a specific example of a selfless act performed by humans.
The example he chooses is someone taking a bullet for a child. (There are a variety of related sub items con touches upon). Con points out that the individual likely isn’t thinking about what they will gain, but the other individual benefit.
The definition pro gives (albeit late) for selfless is:
“Selfless: entirely concerned with things other than yourself and your own needs and wants.”
From here, the back and forth is about automatic reactions and whether they constitute a motivation - whether they are selfless or arbitrary. I don’t necessarily think that an reaction like diving in front of a child is necessarily unconscious or thoughtless - but this doesn’t really play out in the debate so I won’t consider it.
The conspicuously missing definition in this debate is “motivation”, and the back and forth between pro and con really all stems to the difference between their interpretation of motivations.
If “motivation” is either conscious, or means the direct reason for performing an action, then this goes to con.
If I am to accept motivation as more of an inherent or indirect cause for why the action is considered then I would chose Pro.
For example - jumping in front of a bullet as con points out is not some for joy, or motivated by direct benefit - but the instinct likely has some degree of inherent indirect conferred benefit. IE: the reason that the instinct exists is to assist long term survival.
For me, what this boils down to is some very basic interpretations that con gave me, and that covered in the definitions.
Con spelt or that there is no direct benefit conferred for dying for a child. The scenario seems pretty clear cut - sacrifice yourself for someone else. This appears on its face altruistic and inherently selfless. That pushes me towards con.
The definition provided by pro is that selfless is a where your not concerning yourself with your own benefit. This seems more in line with what Con is arguing - that an instinctual behaviour isn’t focused on the self - and can be considered selfless.
On top of this, without much in the way of detailed discussion on what motivation mean, I feel the implicit definition pro seems to use is a bit too tenuous for me to accept.
For these three reasons, I am pushed over to cons side, and will award him arguments.
Very interesting debate though guys.
To start with, this debate is very hard to judge as it’s not entirely clear what the intent of resolution actually is.
While the definitions clearly state that “evil = harmful to society”, cons opening round includes some more typically moral arguments.
There’s no end of permutations here; does this mean “more harmful than heterosexuality?” Or “on balance harmful?” Its unclear
So on it’s face - pro offers an example of STDs: while this is well sourced; he doesn’t contrast this with benefits and explain how homosexuality is on balance harmful. Worse, pro appears to come within a hairs breadth of conceding - acknowledging that it may not be blackness that causes the crimes/murders but other factors that correlate. In a similar vein, it’s not clear how the harms are related specifically to homosexuality, rather than being “culture”.
My issue with pros round 2, however extends beyond this. Pro states implies that on balance white people aren’t harmful - implying that the balance is important, and pointing out that part of what is being assessed relates to deviation from a monogamous standard: which encompasses more than simply homosexuality.
Both these undermine pros position by highlighting that he hasn’t contrasted, and highlighting the role of non-monogamy, rather than homosexuality.
Con highlights a set of health benefits - which appear to lay unrefuted by pro throughout. However, con misses his burden by failing to do more to counter the point that STDs are inherently related to homosexuality. This was one sentence buried in the sea.
Cons argument, also, that white people would be harmful to society, or black people appears beside the point. Whether or not pro accepts that wouldn’t necessarily refute the resolution.
The suicide point, while factually valid in my opinions isn’t clear where the harm to society comes in - definitely harmful to the individuals, but not necessarily to society as a whole - and the detail is a bit sketchy on how this ties in.
All in all, there were a lot of mistakes here: I feel that pro set up all the pins for con to be able to land a knock out, but really did not do enough to dispatch it.
Neither one really hammered a good value framework. Pro argues one side, con another, both sides don’t appear to spell out a system.
As a result, I’m sitting here flummoxed. I can take pros value and pro wins, I can take cons value and con wins - bother under mine the values and neither values seem specifically tied to how I viewed the resolution.
Because of this, I kind of have to award a tie - both sides proves their case, but didn’t prove their value.
The description was, in my view, completely transparent and clear. While the debate title is sometimes used as the resolution: in this case not only did con clearly and specifically outline what his position was, and what pros position would be, he clearly framed the definitions and positions without ambiguity as to who is who.
Instead of arguing in good faith; pro instead attempts a semantic and nonsensical attack implying that the resolution “wasn’t clear”. While pro goes to great length to explain that debate rules and definitions added in the debate description are not enforced by moderation - pro offers no meaningful argument I can see about what aspect of these rules in this debate should be rejected as unfair or unreasonable, or why I as a voter should over turn the description in his favour.
Indeed pros entire position appears to be “despite the description being clear and fully transparent: I disagree with the allotment of pro and con”. Pro offers me no good reason for why I should reject the clear and concise description and as such pros engire argument is irrelevant.
As pro inherently appears to have the burden of proof, as outlined by the description, and implied in cons opening round - pros failure to engage in any debate on the topic means he offers no actual argument and thus I am forced to award arguments to con.
Conduct:
Pros strategy appears not to be to engage in an actual debate, but to launch a ridiculous semantic argument and frustrate his opponent into forfeiting the debate as a whole. Not only is this arguing in bad faith, it is a shity and antisocial tactic that is likely to drive users from the site. Why would anyone want to use this site, when they create a debate with the intention of debating a topic, only to have a user launch into a left field semantic attack? Con does well to politely sit back and let pro continue his tactic - without forfeiting, or being rude - and for that, I commend him.
Given that pro clearly argues in bad faith, that matching what appears to be a genuine attempt at an intellectual discussion with ridiculous semantics is massively disrespectful to his opponent, and given that such behaviour is clearly detrimental and antithetical to debate in general and the long term health of this site in particular, this constitutes extremely toxic behaviour from pro both within and without the debate : as a result I am awarding con the conduct point too.
Counter vote bomb.
Full forfeit.
Pro mainly focused on the opinions of those involved in the founding, or laws passed after the fact (con pointed both these out), as con discussed, neither of these approaches are relevant as the founding is based on the documents of founding are the guiding principles and these appear to show the country was founded under principles of equality, citing the lack of outright white racism in the documents
And birthright citizenship. (Though isn’t that from one of the later amendments?)
Either way, I have to pick con for arguments here as he points out the issues with the approach taken, and effectively invalidates all of pros arguments by pointing out the founding principles pertain to the document (which isn’t white nationy) rather than opinions of founders and subsequent laws.
This debate needed more rounds for a little bit back and forth to expand on points and ideas, I’d recommend that pro instigates a debate with more rounds next time.