Total votes: 689
Com laid out clear and concise arguments for his position, relating to gravity, seasons, time and the lunar eclipse.
These points went wholly unrefuted. Directly or indirectly: so these must stand.
In addition: pro offers only A few sparse points related to biblical passages, arguing the appearance of being spherical is down to mirages and optical effects and offers no actual positive support for his position; there is no susbtance to any of the positions and so I must reject cons arguments as being insufficient.
Arguments to con
Pros entire approach was obvious trolling, a deliberate attempt to argue in bad faith, and utterly derailed any semblance of what the debate should have been about. Con attempted to stay on topic initially despite this. Pros behaviour was clearly toxic and antithetical to reasoned debate, and massively disrespectful to his opponent. As a result, Conduct goes to con too
So, the resolution here seems pretty clear; pro needs to show that BLM is systemically dishonest, and promotes a narrative of white hating.
Pros ENTIRE case here, is to throw an unending list of statistics, then assert that as a result of these; that BLM is brainwashing people to hate whites.
Even if I buy every specific thing pro says, he presents no evidence BLM brainwashes people to hate whites. At the very best, pros case is that BLM protesting police brutality and systemic racism is misguided, which falls way short of the rhetorical bar he set for himself.
Con correctly points out that the majority of these statistics raised are irrelevant; I side with him, though I think he could have elaborated on why better than he did.
It seems illogical to object to the validity of BLM protesting one particular type of injustice simply because there are more substantial matters at stake - this is prima facia absurd: For example, if I was punched in the face, and lost my job: it would be valid for me to be angry about both: as just because I object in public about one doesn’t mean I am disinterested about the other. Without pro doing more here, I cannot accept these branches of arguments.
Even were I to lower the bar pro sets for himself, to be whether BLM is justified or not, in terms of whether the issues of police brutality exist or are justified.
Con throws out multiple examples of clearly outrageous police killings of unarmed black people. That there are multiple explained police murders; and pros stats also show black individuals are killed disproportionally to their population: this puts me firmly down on cons side on this one.
The remaining issue I have with pros case is touched upon by con.
Pros entire case is implying correlation is causation. He argues that there is a lack of male role models due to single parenthood, that blacks commit more murders.
Why?
I have two options.
First that there is some systemic racism that drove these trends which may or may not now be self fulfilling, which con hints at on a couple of occasions reviewing the historical trends after Jim Crow.
Second , that it’s all solely black peoples fault, that they’re more likely to be murders, criminals and delinquent fathers because they’re black. Pro doesn’t come right out and say this, he blames “black culture”. But the insinuation appears there throughout the whole debate. Not only is there a clear value judgement being made, but the implication being made appears to be as con states “villainizing black people.”
The default position here is CLEARLY not to pressupose that black people are now criminal solely down to themselves given some of the history and issues. On points out, so even in this case pro doesn’t meet his burden, and quite frankly, renders his entire case particularly odious.
In terms of cons case: the main aspect that won it was very much on his demonstration that unarmed blacks are killed frequently. For me, in combination with pros lack of overall warrant wins this. His points 7,8 and 9 were particularly well reasoned.
The remaining points surrounding issues that blacks have to deal with but whites are not are particularly reasonable, and lends themselves well to calls of systemic racism. Pro doesn’t appear to address any of them.
From this position, the debate rapidly degenerated, with tropes and insults from both sides.
In general, pro loses on overall resolution and warrant as covered above: there was much more focus on rhetoric and odious insinuation from statistics than there was a legitimate attempt to engage in the points. The information con added in relation to specific cases was enough to show the basic premises of BLM are valid, and the issues he raised does imply systemic Racism.
I feel con could very much have obliterated pros case from round 1, had taken a step back and dealt head on with the points raised: but given the above, he does enough to win the resolution.
Arguments to con.
Conduct: I’m tying this, as there was clearly instigation and insults being hurled from both sides.
Full dirfeit
Conduct to con for the forfeits.
Arguments.
The ballot tossing argument wins this alone. Pros source noted a federal judge agreed with the argument that the actions were illegal voter suppression, the description seems like voter suppression, and con had no substantive reply to it. The important aspect is the burden pro mentions on voters to re-vote, to which con did not reply.
Cons rebuttal was primarily that this was okay, not that it was voter suppression: and on those grounds I have to accept pros argument.
The second point, relates to exact match. Pro points out that out of rejected matches, 70% were for black voters. Pro also cites sources indicating that this had an undue burden on the individuals involved, and that it disproportionally affected minorities.
Cons rebuttal was mostly a non rebuttal; demanding proof that a disproportionate number of minorities being removed is due to racism. This is not relevant to the resolution: the reason does not have to be explicitly racist to be voter suppression, and as con offers no reason why this is not suppression, I have to accept this too. The only defence is that individuals could still vote if they can prove a substantial match: while I may buy the technicalities, the burden that inherent burden pro pointed out in his sources isn’t undermined simply by cons say-so. Con has to reasonably demonstrate that there is minimum or no burden to refute it.
So from these I have two ways I can vote to uphold pro arguments and none for con. Arguments to pro.
Sources:
The prop publica source, the WaPo source (neatly quoted for cons benefit), and the NPR link upheld pros burden here and substantially added to pros warrant by demonstrating inherent suppression. Without these sources, this argument would have been substantially weaker. Cons few sources weren’t as well targeted and were mostly used to bolster facts that he then used to draw inferences from - which doesn’t increase his warrant in this case. Worse, as pro pointed out, the Fox News post was linked to support one premise but appeared to nominally support pros position. Because of this pros usage of sources was superior and helped his case much more and warrants awarding a source point. Sources to pro.
Note: for anyone wondering this was almost a textbook example of how to use sources well in a debate by pro.
So, there are two main contentions here proposed by pro. The first relates to the case of illegal prostitution. Pro states that if prostitution is illegal, prostitutes are less likely to report abuse and violence in scenarios without fear of prosecution - offering a causal reason.
Likewise, pro offers a benefit of the Nordic model over fully legal - specifically he offers a very simple to understand causal reason: that when Johns are less willing to engage in prostitution: with legal prostitution, there’s more market, to be fulfilled by trafficked women.
This fact is supported specifically by the source (which itself sources science direct).
Cons response is basically to mostly concede the first point: though con argues that the position is about “rooting out abusive Johns”.
Con makes a lot of hay here about pimps “clamping down,” though his point is a bit laboured and a bit of a world salad and isn’t particularly cleat. This may make his fully legal plan better than pros; con seems to be arguing that were prostitution legal, then brothel and pimp owners would not act harshly or violently - where as in pros plan they would.
This seems a bit of a stretch, and is not supported by any solid data or sources for that section, which is odd : as this is pretty much the central benefit of his plan over his opponent; and he appears to source everything else.
Quite honestly, it’s particularly unclear how the auditing and whore training fits in; just block quoting information about “an audit” is not itself an argument - and I’m at a loss as to how beneficial “whore training” could or would be other than cons hypothetical benefit.
While I can happily buy the councilling could be beneficial - it doesn’t strike me as unique to legalization: and whilst I’m somewhat willing to believe the hold of criminal gangs would be alleviated by full legalization, there are doubts (due to trafficking issues), so I can’t weight this particularly strongly, even though I think I should accept it as true.
However con doesn’t cover the increase in trafficking in legalized countries (supported by a source), which is a clear major negative of cons plan compared to pros.
Con covers this later, and argues without any sources, that the gain in trafficking is because people report it more. Con argues that pro is “lying”, and this claim isn’t true. In cons source related to trafficking one pointed out:
“Evaluations have found that regulation of prostitution creates a façade of legitimacy that hides sexual exploitation, and that brothels can “function as legalized outlets for victims of sex trafficking.”
The source material for pros claim clearly preempts cons claim here imo, and while I would have accepted a counter source, none seemed to be provided by con - who relies mostly on say so. Whilst I could have accepted it if con had not supported the contention with a pretty solid source, cons counter claims is already covered.
I can’t really consider the point dropped; as it’s a new point raised when the debate rules said it was supposed to be rejoinders; making it near impossible for pro to respond even with the forfeit.
So given this, con offers a weak benefit of his model over pros. Pro offers a major benefit over cons.
It’s near impossible to really weigh the impacts of both: that should be down to debaters to do - and despite literally saying so in every debate, without clearly weighed impacts, I have to use my own intuition. In this case trafficking itself is a specific and clear harm in pros case - given that con doesn’t do enough to really sell me on the lesser impact of pimping in his case, or quantify the harm it has : I have to side with pro. Arguments to pro
Conduct to con for the forfeit.
Note: I would have scored the source point to do here - the source was excellent and particularly thorough: but I don’t think that in the context of the full debate that a four point swing was earned.
Note: the questions do nothing for the debate, they are literally pointless from a voting point of view a I wouldn’t use them again.
Full forfeit
Clearly this was an unreasonable attempt to create a debate win with an unwinnable resolution and ruleset.
While I would have awarded points to con for pointing out the lack of reasonableness of the rules; cons argument was not good enough to really overturn the resolution. Saying that - I’m not going to award any points to someone who sets up a truism debate unless that debate is reasonable.
If you subject yourself to no risk, you get no reward.
Conceasion
Full forfeit.
Concession.
Concession.
Pro effectively concedes the debate in round 1, by admitting that While Bran is King he only partially leads Westeros.
Con points out the issues with this, by citing the example of Donald Trump being called the President of North America if he wasn’t president of Canada and Mexico also. This is dropped by pro, and is enough on its own to award arguments to con.
I don’t fully accept cons argument that episode 6 consistiutes the sixth episode ever; this is not the first thing that jumps out, so will reject this point.
Because con points out that Bran does not lead Westeros as a whole successfully - this outweighs all other points.
Conduct to con for the forfeit.
So; the main issue here revolves around being a true Christian and what it means. Pros “No true Scotsman” was well pointedlut. Pro needs to come up with a high quality and substantial and objective reason to believe that Catholics cannot be considered “true” Christians.
Pros primary contention revolve around listing points of Dogma and claiming that Catholics interpretation is wrong and his is correct. Con - to his credit - points out this issue, and that there is no definitive translation that is more correct than any other pointed it and justified for one to judge. Most importantly con points out Catholics are Christians, and while there are differences in beliefs, he points out that this does not mean they are necessarily not “true” Christians. As pro did not defend any of his claims against this criticism - cons argument stands and thus con gets arguments too.
Full forfeit
Full forfeit.
Conduct to con for the forfeit.
Arguments: Given the semantic nature of this argument I would have given much of the benefit of the doubt to pro. Unfortunately pro didn’t really offer any clear reason to object to pros statements that the earth’s sky cant be considered blue as it is sometimes another color. I can’t really accept any of the arguments in the final round as these are mostly new rather than extensions to previous arguments.
Pro did have many options to go with here, but didn’t exercise them: and I’m left with a clear picture of a non blue sky, and a single assertion that”the sky is mostly blue” with little other context that alone imo is enough to award con the win on arguments.
Haggling over the resolution.
Pro claims the resolution is to change his mind. Con turns this around and claims that sure - the resolution is to change his mind, but if that doesn’t happen the resolution is negated (the mind is not changed).
Pro was hoisted by his own petard here, deciding upon an undebatable topic, and trolling premise that pro clearly turned on its head. Pro offered no meaningful argument and simply restated his position. As a result - arguments to con.
Conduct to con also. While con forfeited - which normally garners a deduction. The bait and switch semantic nonsense of this debate clearly was pretty shitty overall - and worse than normal: as it is clearly an unfair premise intended to trap individuals - conduct to con also as it outweighs the forfeit.
Arguments
“Another war”. Pro outlines the negatives of intervention - terrorism and destabilization. Cons outline was thats Syria was already destabilized and served as a warning.
Pro points out that there was another chemical attack afterwards, that ISIS was falling, and so it didn’t serve as a warning, and was of limited effectiveness as Assad is being supported by Moscow.
Pro clearly outlines the harm of those killed for no apparent benefit. This point goes to pro.
2.) hypocrisy.
Pro points out that not intervening in international affairs was a campaign promise that Trump broke. Con seems to agree. This point goes to pro, though it is not clear why breaking a promise causes inherent harm (what if he is right now but wrong before?)
3.) wrong place.
Pro claims the airbase was protecting a town from isis, indicating that the strike assisted the Jihadists. Con drops this. So this point goes to pro too.
4.) The revels made the attack - it wasn’t Syria.
There was much confusion here. Pro confuses the US backed rebels with Jihadists, and the article appears to support cons position that it was Syria.
In all, pros argument seemed too much like conspiracy and conjecture. This point goes to con. Saying this, that it was Syria that committed the bombing seems to be more in support of cons position, but given point (1) overall the benefit of bombing for the chemical attack is largely mitigated by it being ineffective.
Summary:
So, the issue here is that con doesn’t give me any compelling benefit or case to support the bombing other than deterrence - which didn’t work.
Pro gives two weak harms (aiding Isis and killing civilians) of the bombing.
Given this, though pros harms are weak - they beat the lack of benefit that con shows. As a result - arguments go to pro.
Nearly a full forfeit. Half of the rounds have been forfeited, and little in the way of any argument was offered past round one by con.
Full forfeit
Ocean
So this is a great sort of downbeat track. Somewhere between afterlife and above and beyond. I don’t normally like EDM that relies too heavily on the lyrics, it loses something in the layering, but I felt the counter melody and background layers really added up well, this was a great track: 9
Free: the vocals and track were interesting, it didn’t feel like it really built up to anything, the drop was disjointed and it didn’t feel like it added much. Without a good hook here, I didn’t feel this song had lots to offer: 5
Years from now: so this is my guilty pleasure type of song. It has a sort of Terra Ferma - among the stars/Stage one - space maneuvers (gotta love hooj) feel to it - kinda a little ashtrax throne in. I loved the Bassy chilled feel, and it’s a great tune I could listen to when I’m in the mood for some less energetic tracks. I straight up thought this track was amazing, and the type of song I love to mix- and I am quite happy to award this one: 10
The little things: this one was okay, a little bit along the lines of “someone to lean on”, bouncy and a good club song, but felt rather middle of the road. It’s interesting too be sure, but not didn’t really feel like it stood out: 6
Put me back together: this was again a buoy middle of the road, it had a simpler feel to the last round. This one was slightly more level, with a little bit more too it: a bit more haunting. For a wind down chilled track, it was passable. It was marginally more catchy than the last track with a hook I’m more likely to remember: 7
Total: 37
Ocean:
So this was a great vocal track - unlike Bsh’s ocean this was more my style of EDM vocal track - vocals as equal to the other layers rather than rising above. Much more above and beyond (have I mentioned I like A&B?); the build up was immense, but I was very, very let down by the drop. The discontinuous nature broke up the song too much in a place where I felt it needed to pick up with a full on beat. If it had, this would have been a 10, but without it, I felt the song failed for me: 6
Nevada: Really liked this track, great build up, great hook, hard edge mid section, and gelled well when the hook came in on top of the lyrics (that’s something many EDM songs don’t do right). Used the EDM equivalent of “the four chords”, but I was tapping along - the hook wasn’t quite as catchy or hummable as others though, so this lets it down from a 10: 9.
Running away: great track, higher tempo, interesting layering to it. Not as catchy imo as some of the others, but is definitely decent: 7
Crystal skies: I am in two minds here. On the one hand, the build up and verse structure was everything I love about EDM, it was Tilt, Matt Darey, everything. But on the other hand, the drop really let It down: I’m not a fan of dubstep breaks like this when it’s out of character with the rest of the song, and for this reason I can’t give it a big score: if it had continued its beat into a major classic EDM drop, this would have been a 9/10. However, with the drop, this song felt like a big let down:5
Ride or die: boom! Love this track, catchy hook, nice drop: I would have liked it a bit faster but I felt enjoyed this one, though a bit less than would warrant a ten.
This was my RFD for the last time you posted this track. While I love the song, the fact that you used it before was a bit cheaty. I would give this one a 2 point deduction.
Total: 34
Saying this, even without the deduction - Bsh wins this one 37/34
Concessions
Pro offers a small number of actual benefits for his plan.
Specifically, the ability to create money will lift poorer organizations of poverty.
Pros argument that it will allow for eugenics by encouraging some races not to breed appears flatly absurd - and given that it doesn’t sound like a good thing at all, counts against him.
Pros argument from the grounds of crime rate are also absurd - pro doesn’t give a clear reason why this is true in his plan, so will be dismissed .
Pros arguments for practicality with morality and feasibility appear to be an argument against wastefulness, which sure, I guess could be a net positive, but isn’t.
The main argument that con presents is relating to the economics of this: basically inflation from being able to print money, and the inability to store and maintain fetuses. Worse, con introduces the possibility that it would induce theft of fetuses that were intended to be children.
These seem damning practical issues.
In terms of storage alone, pro doesn’t have an answer for the cost prohibitive nature, on this. Or how the poor people who he claims will benefit most will be able to store fetuses. Pro flits between arguing the rich will have nitrogen storage or the public sector will provide storage.
There was also no real explanation of why the stability of the USF would be sufficient in light of cons objections.
As pro offers no real objective benefit, only a nebulous appeal to waste, and the poor being able to make more money; con doesn’t do much here to overturn the benefits - as quite frankly pro argues no tangible or measurable benefit; only hypothetical assertions that it will benefit - no quantifiable description of how much.
Con overturns this in two ways: one by showing that there is no practical ability to store the currency rendering it useless - and antithetical to the idea of the poor making more money.
pros appeal to eugenics, and racial purity further undermine his own point as these are inherently undesirable by default.
As the tangible and practical issues clearly land in favour of con, and there appear to be no clear benefits of pros benefits: arguments to con.
Conduct to pro for the forfeit.
So I looked at this resolution: and it was completely and immediately obvious what the resolution meant, that the words obi and wan had alternate meanings. I can’t view this as a trap debate as it was so blindingly obvious and there were no obvious semantic shenanigans.
Pro provides evidence that those words have the specific meaning in Japanese, and that seems pretty open and shut. Con even conceded this is what they mean in Japanese.
Cons only objection is that this debate is in English. This is wholly unconvincing to me: those words having that meaning in japanese, what part of this debate being English means that pro is unable to reference Japanese words? This is just nebulous to me, and as con conceded these words have the specified meaning in japanese, con effectively conceded the resolution to pro given that con gives me no other reasons to reject the inclusion of Japanese words, or that these words should not be assumed to be japanese.
The final point that it can’t mean what pro said, as they aren’t joined is even worse. I can’t see any intuitive reason why this would be true - and it gives the impression com is just trying to unnecessarily or unreasonably restrict the obvious resolution in a way that benefits him. As a result, I don’t think it’s valid for me to accept this points either.
As a result of these, and the implicit concession: arguments to pro.
“I am conceding that a ghost is a thing and that ghosts are things“ while pro goes onto say that ghosts aren’t things - my interpretation of the resolution : which is always to assume the most reasonable interpretation means that by conceding a ghost and ghosts are things Pro conceded that there are such thing as ghosts. This negates the resolution and so arguments must go to con.
The resolution appears fairly clear - and this appears to be a non troll topic, if only poorly worded. Instead of actually arguing in good faith about the existence (or not) of ghosts - pro seemed to be launching into an attack about cons technically incorrect grammar. While the grammar isn’t correct, it’s understandable, and doesn’t affect readability - in this case the pinickity and overly semantic attack on grammar was particularly obtuse and argued in bad faith for little reason, and for this reason I chose not to award conduct even though con forfeits the opening round.
Concession
Cons argument here is most relevant: “In order to win this debate, Pro has to prove that Jesus Christ is God in human form. My opponent's entire argument rests solely on the Bible. The first obvious question to ask is why should we consider the Bible as God's word? Even if I concede your argument, you only proved that from a Biblical framework. You need to do more than just that to win this debate.”
Pro offers no non biblically based examples, or evidence: this means even if buy pros contention - it only proves it within a biblical framework and not objectively. The resolution does not appear to clearly note this, and thus on the grounds of the above, I cannot consider that pro has met a basic burden of proof. Con on the other hand produces a set of clearly unchallenged biblical examples. In terms of BoP, I would assess that pro must provide BoP to affirm, where as proving a negative means cons burden of proof is merely to negate pro. Given this - con clearly uphold this burden with ththe above, and thus arguments go to con.
Conduct also goes to con for the forfeit.
For pro, the benefit of his proposal are clear: making the benefits of the BSA available to the entire population of children.
Importantly, pro points out that troops are not coed, but the meetings can be. This appears to be an important distinction, as it means the BSA remains largely the same.
Cons response seems as if he didn’t read this second point, as 2,4,5,6,7 appears to be predicated on the idea that troops will be coed, an issue that pro corrects.
Cons issues 1&3 as pro points out are appeals to tradition. Con does not offers a key impact or harm for changing these cases, so does not provide a compelling reason to treat these as substantial.
Cons second round basically asserts his position is valid and denies the necessity for him to provide any evidence: he focuses on issues that have already been dealt with by pros coed troop examples. And then forfeits the remaining rounds.
As a result, the bulk of cons claims are either erroneously assuming that troops are coed in pros plan, or are appeals to tradition with no justification. At no point are the benefits outlined by pro negated - and as such arguments go to pro.
Conduct to pro for cons forfeits.
Sparrow relied altogether too much on just various types of swearing, and made it sound like he was an urban dictaionary screensaver. There wasn’t a great deal of imaginative or humours disses from either side in this, though sparrow did marginally better on this. The rhyme on both sides were generally simplistic, but pro a little more so.
While marginal, sparrow just edges this in both cases.
This wasn’t great by any means, I felt the insults were a bit lacking on both sides, with no outright zingers that me laugh out loud. The rhyming structure was often hard to follow for pro, and a little easier to make out for con, together with a marginally more interesting set of rhymes, and fewer fizzles from con makes me feel con just edged this one out: however due to how close it was, I’ll only be awarding one point to reflect how close it was.
Concession
Ray of hope:
Nice hard edge, not too dubstep. Not super catchy but a pretty decent song:7
Synchronize.
This sounds like a pretty middle of the road summer dance track, while it was passable, it was mostly forgettable: 5
In flames:
So, this song was okay, I thought the drop was pretty good, but that’s mostly all there was, not enough catchiness or variation for me: 6
Ride or die: boom! Love this track, catchy hook, nice drop: I would have liked it a bit faster but I felt enjoyed this one, though a bit less than would warrant a ten: 9
Vicetone: now this is a ten. This has hints of Avicii at his prime, loved the bounced, loved the hook. Could not fault this at all: 10
Total 37
Mishpacha Shel Simch:
This has an edge of europium, rather than explicitly EDM, without the intrinsic catchiness of Dragostea din tei: 3
Panic at the disco:
I actually loved this track! Catchy hook made better by a pretty decent drop. It’s not my favourite type of EDM, but a great work out track: 7
Without me:
Drop was too short, but the build up was amazing. I particularly loved the layers on the build up. I was a little disappointed until the later half where disjoint sound seemed to add to the track rather than making it feel like something was left out: 7
Harder better faster longer.
I love this song for the subtle variations it uses throughout! Not my fave DF track, but I do like really it: 8
Save the world:
I really like this track too: and SHM in general, this is not my favourite of theirs: but it’s on the catchy side with a decent drop: 8.
Total: 35
Pro wins 37-35.
Quality was really high on both sides imo - and unfortunately 35 would have probably won you every other EDM battle from my memory. Good job both.
Pro interprets the debate to mean his dog - and provides clear justificafion as to why this is the case. Con objects that the resolution meant something else, however in the absence of telepathy I am forced to side with pro that his dog being gay is the most reasonable interpretation of the resolution.
Pro wins this hands down on the grounds of definitions, and the pictures cited arguing that as well as homosexual - gay meaning happy and joyous is also a reasonable interpretation.
As a result: arguments to pro.
I would suggest to con to be clear, and less trolling in debate titles and attempt to engage in good faith with clear definitions.
Also, it should be noted for the record that in addition to being gay, or is clear that Ragnars dog is also a good boy.
https://www.debateart.com/debates/740?open_tab=comments&comments_page=1&comment_number=155
Pro raises several items which he believes are down to cons religious convictions.
His raised issues from politics, legalized prostitution, and the border fence are so tenuously and indirectly linked to cons religious beliefs, if at all, that I can’t accept them.
To me, the resolution means that con has to be projecting a religious belief into the political arena, rather than a nebulous attack of a generalized worldview. Pro has to cite some area or avenue where com has cited that his political beliefs are guided by religion directly. While I’m prepared to accept that all cons position are guided by religious beliefs and worldview - I don’t think simply stating he is religious and has political beliefs is enough, which is a broad outline summary of pros position here. Pro has to do more to link directly and causally cons religious beliefs and political beliefs for me to award him the win.
So these don’t cut it.
Likewise, for gay marriage: con appears to clearly have an opinion on gay marriage from a religious point of view, but clearly argues a separate political belief that the government should not be involved. I can’t accept this either as there simply is not enough clear cut examples of the political and religious belief being aligned (I suspect pro could have done more by challenging potential hypocrisy).
Pro could have absolutely hammered con here on abortion - con came very close to basically admitting this was a religious belief - but I simply can’t award the debate on this sole basis, of a throwaway line, used as an example.
As a result, I don’t feel any of the examples were enough to show a political belief driven solely from a religious belief. Though I think this was an ultimately attainable and winnable condition on abortion.
Full forfeit
Conduct to con for the Forfeit.
So for the arguments - I am looking for which scales better. Which option works better with less incremental changes if you double, triple, or quadruple the dart user base.
There is an inherent necessity for validity - so pro must additionally show in his example the voting standards maintained are roughly as good as manual intervention.
Con can win by showing manual method scales as well - or by showing pros plan leads to materially worse judgements.
Pro starts out by listing multiple criteria for his plan, and does well to explain both abuse and bully prevention. While I don’t think the stats behind this are fully thrashed out: and are ripe for potential discussion, I will leave this to con.
Cons opening round, appears to consist entirely of a description of some generalized crowdsourcing, it appears there is little to attack pros example directly, nor to succinctly or genetically highlight the benefits of manual intervention in comparison.
Out of the entire first round, it appears cons major objection is that crowdsourcing is subject to troll and biased votes: though pro seems to explicitly cover some of this, the idea that people will generally vote up bad votes, or vote down good votes seems hypothetical and largely unexplored. Worse, con appears to spend much of this round putting words in pros mouth.
Pro points out other scenarios where up and down votes and crowd source voting works (stack exchange).
Pro points out that weighted voting can be automated (i see no reason for this not to be the case), and pro also points out that detecting of nefarious voting trends can be detected automatically.
Pro argues this feeds into the culture of voting, and helps to change the groups behaviour as a whole.
At the end of all of this, I felt pro outlines an excellent scalable case for crowdsourcing, whilst cons approach is to try and show how crowdsourcing is insufficient. Not only does cons argument appears barely relevant, putting words in pros mouth, or subtly misrepresenting automatable aspects as unautomatable (vote weighting), con offers no tangible benefit to manual voting, and no tangible specific detriment. Cons final argument appears to be that moderators would have to moderate the crowdsourcing mechanism, while I think moderators will be required to some degree for the site as a whole - I don’t see the specific issues as outlined by con as things that are either specific to voting, or fall as part of the crowdsourcing of voting: ie moderating the system would be fine, moderating some votes would not.
If con had given more concrete examples and specific harms - I may have ruled differently, but con does not offer anything concrete, more some nebulous idea that it won’t work based on intangible hypothetical examples that make it hard for me to weight in comparison to pros specifics.
As a result, I have little choice but to give arguments to pro.
Concession.
And this is a neat little semantic trap debate! Though one that is completely obvious.
Basically sparrow is arguing that some chimpanzees are smarter than some humans — his opponent is arguing that humans as a species are smarter than chimpanzees as a whole.
I think each side proved their particular contention - and neither side spends much time refuting the others central thesis outside the definitions and the application, so it now becomes which definition is correct.
Con points out the most obvious interpretation of the resolution is that it applies to the species; and proceeds to explain the rules of English with regards to animals and collectives. Con points out if pro wanted a debate on whether some chimps are smarter than some humans, he should have defined the debate that way.
The remainder of the semantics involve con pointing out that pro is intentionally using a semantic trap unfairly. Resolution is king, and the resolution to be upheld is the one as written, and the one any reasonable human being would infer from looking at the title and definition.
If pro wishes to not loses these sort of debates because people misunderstand his resolution - perhaps he should be more clear about what he means in the debate definition and title. I side with con on this one, and believe the resolution should be generalized.
In terms of the remaining points: pro cited a number of studies to support his position in terms of memory, generalized intelligence - con turned almost all of these around against pro - by highlighting key fundamental omissions that mean the study is of a single well trained chimp, or is otherwise less a generic quality of Chimps than perhaps one specific example.
As a result of this, pro offers no real argument that holds water for his position nor to support the core of the resolution.
Arguments to con.
Conduct: Pro doesn’t engage in good faith. He attempts a semantic debate - which he tries to bait with a common definition then switch to another. This is antithetical to debate - and highly disrespectful to other debates. It should be treated as such and warrants a conduct mark down.
Sources: con offered decent sources, the plos example, and smithsonian magazine were used well to bolster the support for his initial position by improving the inherent warrant with supportative data
Pro, used multiple sources too, how shoots himself in the foot twice: his natural news example destroyed his warrant as con points out he was omitting a key element of the underlying study that supported cons position. Con pointed out that pros source was indeed fake news.
The second study about memory, again ends up being woeful for pro - utterly undermining his position when the underlying sources are pulled up.
In this regard, cons sources help improve his warrant - pro misquotes and undermines his own position with his sources.
Sources to con too.
Okay, so first things first: what are slytherin values: con spells out that they are cunning, power hungry, etc: and pro does not seem to challenge this more than adding loyalty to the group, and redefining power hungry a little.
Con argues that voldermort was successful while Malfoy appeared to inherit everything. Pros main challenge is that severity of acts does not mean he upholds the values more truly. Pro comes up with an excelllent example of an ISIS terrorist - this is a great argument from pro.
Pro points out that voldermort tried to challenge HP multiple times indicating bravery (Gryffindor),
Pro points out that voldermort takes on anyone in his way, whilst malfoy shows his loyalty to the group and family.
At this point, there are so many arguments made by both sides, it’s hard to keep up and talk of them all. The main relevant crux of this, is that pro argues malfoy mostly Plotted in the background whilst voldermort was more in-your-face.
While con excused this, this is basically creating an excuse for why voldermort wasn’t living up to slytherin values.
Matters of competency and success, I give totally to pro - as pro does an excellent job of explaining success in matters is not necessarily a measure of truly upholding values.
In terms of truer, pro also successfully framed this debate about purity - casting substantial doubt on whether voldermort was pure slytherin.
There were many nit picky aspects - too many to list which I felt weren’t as relevant or as important - why did he despise the Weasley’s? Or endanger his son with the basilisk? But con didn’t get out of the shadow of pros framing here.
Pro managed to make this debate about who is a purer slytherin, and made the tightest conformance to only slytherin values - and to successfully eradicate cons only real advantage which was how successful voldermort was. I felt this meant pro was able to successfully point out that while voldermort deviates from slytherin values - and is successful, malfoy is ultimately unsuccessful, but in a way that conforms with slytherin.
As a result of this, I have to award arguments to pro - and was probably the best debate of pros I have read here so far.
You got to go.
Love above and beyond, and this remix really changes the style and gives the song an interesting feel: 8
Worlds apart:
Again, nice clean feel. Hook isn’t particularly catchy, but I’d be happy listening to this: 7
Said the sky:
These are starting to feel a bit samey: while this one was good, there was little separating this from the previous: 6
Start again.
Again, a bit samey: 5
Strangers
I liked this one. Drop felt out of place, but the song itself was decent and catchy: 8
Total: 34
Ignite:
This one is merely okay, the downtempo and bouncy feel makes it sound a bit like hardcore, which would have garnered an instant 0 from me: 5
Darkside:
This one is a little catchier but has the same feel as the last one, downtempo but less hardcore: 6
Faded: don’t like this one actually, the down tempo slow speed made it feel an otherwise interesting track feel mediocre and odd: 4
Legends never die
Better, but the pace again let’s this track down - tune is better and feels a bit catchier : 6,
All falls down:
The lyrics carry this one a little bit more than the other tracks as it doesn’t make the lower tempo feel as out of place: 7
Total: 28
Winner: pro
C to the OunterVoteBomb
Conduct to pro for cons forfeit.
Pro, imo does not provide a framework for a plausible basis for why one should keep a profile picture vs not. Assuming that it was simple with no meaning is a plausible justification, then con pointing out it has a deep meaning fully undermines that position. Pro then does a complete 180 arguing “ahah! The only thing better than simple is complex” - to me this 180 exposes this point as fairly vacuous. If complex and simple are both good, why not keep his simpler example now?
The remaining argument from continuity seems rather arbitrary. Con points out that changing it back now is a greater harm to continuity. While pro points out that the change was made just around the time of the debate, pro needs to sell me a good reason why I should accept continuity as a basis for voting. His justification is that it helps recognize the individual. This strikes me as somewhat poor - the confusion won’t last long and as con points out - he would be recognized by the new profile. The complexity and motivation argument con made seemed a little less intuitive, but it was mostly unchallenged.
As there is no easy way of objectively weighting the criteria, it’s difficult for me to anchor either of the two arguments to any real value. This means that the “should” pro provides me is relatively arbitrary. I am faced with a poor - unchallenged reason not to change, and a slightly better - but challenged example. Given that con successfully turned around the simplicity point, I feel con edges this one - as there’s no clear and objective reason to change back - and cons subjective reason is effectively unchallenged.
Arguments to con.
1.) Kritiks are prevented by the rules. An assumption Inherent in the resolution, is that the resolution is answerable (as outlined by pro), con clearly challenges this assumption and therefore is guilty of a kritik. As this was cons whole argument - pros argument is not addressed and is dropped. Pro wins
2.) I am and have been willing to ignore rules if one side can argue why I should not accept the rules, that they are unfair or unreasonable. Pro points out the rule is there to keep the debate as a discussion on the merits of a plan - not a crappy nitpicking logic fest unrelated to the resolution. Con does not clearly elaborate on any harm that would be imposed for the rule. Rules upheld. Kritik rejected. Pros points dropped. Pro wins
3.) Cons case that moral imperatives are not possible and so the resolution is unanswerable, appears to be mostly dealt with as a value statement. That if one presupposes a particularly moral framework that guides moral decisions, then oughts are possible. Pro elaborates on this in Round 2. Con doesn’t seem to have much of an answer to why I shouldn’t accept this other than to object to the notion of an axiomatic value (pro covered in R3). Kritik rejected. Pros points dropped. Pro wins
4.) Even If I accept all that, is/ought are accepted problems and normally aren’t a part of policy debate. For me to accept the kritik even if I waive the three issues above, con imo has to show a clear harm of accepting this assumption as is. If pro can’t show why there is a harm in accepting the resolution - I can’t see any practical or meaningful reason I should accept the premise. Kritik rejected - pros arguments dropped. Pro wins
5.) even if I ignore the above, accepting the resolution in my view offers no negation of the resolution. As the BoP is evenly shared in the rules. Even if I reject everything pro said, and accept everything con said. It’s still a tie.
Given the above, pro had me at point one, and thus arguments go to pro.
Conduct. Not only was con engaging in a ridiculous nitpicking argument outside both the intent and normal practice of a debate, he then launched into an inherently anti social debate approach. This was rounded up with his 4th and 5th round:
“I apologize, I was under the impression that this would be an honest discussion. That was my fault for making assumptions.”
“How frivolous of you. I've already made my case and you simply hand wave it off saying it's not a problem. “
“I hope your votes keep you warm at night. Because your thoughts won't. “
Cons behaviour deteriorated into the petulant and obtuse. Pro patiently responded, did not call names, or flip any tables, despite the degree of apparent provocation.
Cons behaviour was egregious. He didn’t appear to debate in good faith on the clear intent of the topic, he resorted to petulance and sarcasm that was clearly both objectionable to any reasonable person and showed a profound lack of respect for his opponent.
This Conduct was extremely disrespectful and would clearly warrant a conduct violation if it was allowed, but also severe enough and a loss on these grounds alone.
As a result, pro wins here in 5 different ways.
Pro sets up a semantic trap debate. Defining all milk as organic. Pro sticks with this throughout.
Con kinda flails here. He starts off with the actually strong argument that there is no such thing as non organic milk - so by default milk can’t be better than it. This should have been the hammer that con beats pros point over the head with.
Instead, con tries to counter with multiple other approaches, “better is arbitrary” - which imo was poorly executed, and is probably better suited to truly arbitrary comparison or scenarios where you can clearly argue multiple beneficial definitions of better. This felt clearly insufficient.
The second is to argue that milk fortification somehow makes it inorganic, the definitional approach could be very strong. Con does this by clearly arguing that this was a trap debate - and as the definitions used were not agreed his is as good as pros.
When I look at the resolution, cons definition seem more relevant and pertinent to the resolution, and as such I have to side with cons definition. Con then spells out how the milk we drink is not organic, but is generally better. This is a reasonable argument - and an argument pro simply dismisses out of hand.
On this alone - I feel con clearly negates the resolution.
However in addition, cons argument that organic milk cant be better than nonexistent milk is very valid. Pros only counter argument is that organic milk is better than nothing - but in my view the resolution is that organic milk is better than non organic milk, not that it is better than nothing.
As a result, I would have awarded con arguments for this too.
As a result of these clear negations: arguments to con.
Conduct: pro sets up a clear attempt at bait and switch, trying to dupe someone into a cheap semantic win using a definition that clear stands outside any reasonable interpretation of the resolution.
Bait and switch semantic debates like this are antithetical to debate - as they aren’t discussion on the merits, and to the debate site a while - where people want to discuss point of views, not engage in shitty definitional battles.
Cons behaviour here is clearly to set up an unfair debate, which in my opinion is a clear violation of good form and conduct that is substantial enough to merit a conduct violation. Pro was as well mannered as one could hope throughout despite this.
As a result of this, conduct goes to con too.
Pro sets out his claims. Forfeits are detrimental - some debates slip through and end in ties was the primary rational for pros case. Together with there being little in the way of additional penalization for forfeits.
The main benefit of cons plan, is that it prevents any forfeited debate ending in a tier with no votes; which he provides evidence has occurred. It has the added impact of just adding an additional hurdle in cases where the argument is not a full forfeit. Forfeits making it harder in winner selection, and requiring more in the way of arguments to win.
While I am not certain of exactly what the strength of the benefit in pros plan in its entirety (there was no real argument to quantify this on either side), he justifies (with evidence), that there is benefit in this plan to prevent any forfeited debates (which have occurred) ending in a tie, and benefit of pushing the debate in one side’s favor due to forfeits.
Cons objections are basically rooted in hypothetical scenarios of forfeit then concession (which pro points out has never yet occurred), whereas the converse that ended in a tie has. Worse, con doesn’t appear to address any substantive benefit pro provides in the case of winner selection or vote advantage that pro justifies with the harm spelt out in the opening round.
Cons only other argument is really to just argue there is no need as there is not really a problem. Pro showed the problem does actually exist with examples of debates that have been forfeits and ended in pure ties.
Con leaves his entire argument to the final round - which is not just highly antisocial - it is antithetical to debate. Debate is about the logical discussion and argument surrounding a point. Leaving the primary arguments to the very end is effectively preventing on side from having a valid discussion - and as such I will not be considering any arguments that pro has not had an opportunity to counter - this involves the majority of the final round.
As a result of this, in the main argument rounds - con barely makes any critical or key objection to pros case that I can consider, and appears to drop some of the major claims noted above, the remaining points in R3 are a case of too little too late. As con does not show a clear detrimental harm to pros plan, nor negates the multiple benefits: a result, arguments to pro.
Conduct to pro for the forfeit.
Concession.