Ramshutu

Complete tie.

Forfeit/concession

No arguments from either side - even forfeits

Conduct to con: pro “effectively” forfeited two rounds of argument. While the rounds were 12 hours, it’s incumbent in pro to read the debate configuration before hand.

Arguments

Pro argues the bible is reliable, and that Jesus fulfilled 300 prophecies.

Con points out that there pro has not justified the reliability of the Bible, and points out some examples of unreliability, these on their face seem pretty damning to the reliability of the Bible.

Con points out that the primary justification for Jesus fulfilling 300 prophecies, citing the Bible. Con provides an excellent argument - using Harry Potter and usain bolt autobiography to justify why I shouldn’t consider this validation

Pro starts off by arguing that cons definition of reliability is incorrect, that it should be viewed in terms of a historical document.

While I’m largely sympathetic and agree that the exact definition con uses is not ideal, for “reliability” of the Bible to be justification of a supreme deity - pro must do more than show that it meets basic historical standards.

As a result - pros argument in defense of reliability appears to be more of a set of an excuses as to why the Bible isn’t reliable. It’s either a reliable document or not, factual errors, incongruities clearly undermine that position.

Pro goes on to object to the Harry Potter example as Harry Potter is self professed fiction - which imo misses the point of this argument. Pro drops the usain bolt argument which is far more relevant.

Pro reiterates that the Bible has been cited more than the Iliad. How this proves the Bible is reliable, I am not certain.

Cons rebuttal was to defend the definition as supported by pros sources. He then goes on to separate historicity from the claim of Gods existence.

Con also argues that pros logic is circular - using the bible to prove the Bible.

Con pointed out his Harry Potter example was absurd but intentionally absurd, and pointed out that witnesses of the Bible disagree on major points.

Pros round 4 was largely a set of rejections / there was little in the way of objective rebuttal.

So, the main issue hinges on reliability. Even if I assume everything pro said was correct about historical reliability - it doesn’t establish that a supreme deity exists - as historicity of content and that contents philosophical claims are not the same. Using a reliability scale more into cons position - the Bible clearly doesn’t meet the reliability criteria set out by his source, as shown by con.

Pro did not respond to the issues of predictions and prophecies that con highlighted - and as this debate was setup for pro to have the burden of proof (I would give him benefit of the doubt on the amount of proof he has to provide), the arguments provided clearly are not sufficient to meet it.

As a result: arguments to con.

Concession by con.

Though I feel bad doing so, as con was clearly classy in his acceptance. I would normally award all 7 points but won’t in this case as a result.

I will only consider ties if both sides agree, and while I accept that there was no full argument on the resolution - it’s not entirely fair to pro to register this as a tie.

Full forfeit

Pro forfeits one round, and offers a huge wall of text with a massive gish Gallup of claims that cannot all be addressed by con no matter how good he was.

As a result: Conduct to con.

The wall of text approach from pro is so absurd and so antithetical to debate, its hard for me to really render a cohesive verdict on every point he makes.

My interpretation of the resolution and how a reasonable person would view it, is that prescription medication is not just potentially harmful (which is trivial), but the harm is a primary usage and characteristic.

Pro focuses on side effects, that medication can kill, that the word itself has connotations of poison - but at no point attempts to present any argument that the primary characteristic and usage of medication is to cause harm.

Con nails pro to the wall by pointing out the cherry picking pro does by fixating only on specific cases, by pointing out that side effects do not always occur, and they simply may.

He argues that definition of the old word upon which pharmaceutical is based does not make it poison, nor does the companies being corrupt, and a few others. Con goes through the primary claims very well, and with far more patience then I would have expected.

Pros response was another wall of text. So badly formatted it was hard to determine where his additional claims start and rebuttals begin.

Pro offers little or no argument about the rarity of side effects, that drugs are not the top 4 causes of death (other than to clairfy), that pharma corruption is just as bad as pharm being poison - which may be true, but is irrelevant to the resolution. And to reiterate his issue with side effects.

Cons final argument round points this all out, that pros position is a collection of anecdotes, that being potentially harmful in some cases doesn’t mean it’s poison, and reiterating his case about side effects.

As a result, despite the near indecipherable mess that was pros argument - con clearly casts sufficient doubt on the resolution, and clearly refuted the bulk of claims.

Arguments to con.

All other points tied.

So, con starts off by saying that having an unanswerable vigilante is undesirable - law enforcement is nominally accountable, whereas vigilantes are not.

He’s second primary argument is that these superhero’s have no training, whereas police and special enforcement groups undergo months of training to deal with specific scenarios.

Pro accuses con of conceding twice - though I’m not entirely sure what. Neither of the accusations appear to be particularly relevant.

Pros main response is - well I’m not entirely sure as his opening 3rd point is rather jumbled and unclear. It appears to be arguing that laws are all arbitrary so why shouldn’t vigilantes be allowed as their justice is as good as others.

Cons reply is basically to point out he didn’t concede anything, and then mainly to point out the accountability in our current system. I felt this was actually a re-enforcement of his position.

Pro argues con is claiming that vigilantes would end up the new government or police this would constitute “working”. He uses Mandela and Malcom x as examples. I can see no place in cons argument where he says that, nor any place where it can be inferred. Worse, no reasonable interpretation of “works” would encompass this in the context of the resolution either.

Pro continues by primarily arguing vigilantism can work for a time - pro doesn’t specify how long this would be, or in what scenarios - and given that any interpretation of “work” implies a longer term success - which pro doesn’t attempt to argue.

Continuing with a wall of quotes - for which pro provides no clear justification or relevance appears to argue that vigilantes can just dump criminals with the cops - which works; or be part of a team.

These seem more of a functional description rather than meaningful any attempt to show the behaviour and operation of these vigilantes would “work”.

Con refuted pros Malcom X and Mandela examples by arguing that they were not fighting criminals

Con also launches into a subsequent defense of democracy, nearly tearing apart pros highlight of problems with majority rule by showing its preferable to minority rule of vigilantes.

At this point, cons argument is clear cut and unrefuted - vigilantes are unaccountable, and untrained, and any meaningful interpretation of the resolution would imply this would not work.

Arguments to con.

Conduct:

While con is a bit snippy in r2, pro appears to be arguing in bad faith, offering mostly an attempt at a semantic victory, forfeited a round, bombarded his opponent with a wall of quotes. The forfeit alone on balance is sufficient to award conduct points in light of the above.

Conduct to con.

All other points tied: though R1 from RM was barely decipherable, subsequent rounds were better.

“DNA proves we are related to other hominids irrefutably and that all species on earth are related”

On what basis can you make this claim?

I was searching for an answer to this question throughout pros arguments, and didn’t find it.

Resolution is king, and as this is a debate - my first expectation would be that pro offers a constructive argument as to why he can make his claim. He doesn’t offer such an argument. The entire premise of his position assumes that individuals like me understand what he’s talking about, and make the argument for why this evidence demonstrates evolution based on our own understanding of it.

As a result, I can fully accept everything pro offers, but it doesn’t end up being clear to me why they end up making evolution “a fact”.

While I don’t feel that con does a great job casting doubt on evolution; he clearly sets up rational reasons to disbelieve that evolution is a “fact”, in the way that pro presents it. The arguments for DNA relatives, arguing that the analysis requires a presupposition of Gods existence, and the argument from symbiosis were the best parts of pro response. pros defense of the former offered no explanation of how DNA allows us to infer ancestry; and for the latter was merely dismissed by pro. These two are enough in the absence of pros burden to cast doubt on the resolution.

The fossile evidence argument from con was terrible - 200 transitional forms? Why are there any?

My main issue here is that I would have to inject my own understanding of evolution here to award this debate to pro - as he offers no justification of his claims. Cons position is not great, but does just enough to cast doubt on the resolution.

Arguments to pro.

All other points tied.

Concession.

Concession

Concession

Concession

Concession.

Pros issue here, is that he spells out what his position is, and the criteria under which actions can be judged, and not once did he provide a justification for his position or argument to fundamentally support that his position is correct.

What I mean by this, is that pro proceeds to assert that all motivations are selfish, then sets himself up to shoot down all counter examples. At no point that I can see does pro attempt to explain the reasoning for this position, and justify it logically or systematically.

While I won’t necessarily agree that pro has lol the burden of proof, he has at least some of it, and his focus in what rather than why really lets him down in this discussion.

Importantly, pros position is eroded by his first response - claiming babies behaviour is arbitrary. This acknowledgement is basically conceding that in this case the motivations of the mini human is not solely racist and thus a single example of what appears to be not purely selfish action has been encountered. Pro himself repeatedly makes the case, that babies actions are not purely selfish - and they in fact do not fit into any social construxtZ

As a result, the remaining parts of the debate and arguments are largely moot, as the debate resolution is clearly negated by this example.

Arguments to con.

Conduct from both sides deteriorated and turned petulant towards the end. Watch that.

Full forfeit

If you had not told me not to vote for one side of another - you would have been awarded a full forfeit. However - as you told me not to vote (and I will not honour that request as I want my vote point!), I can only award this as a tie

Conduct to con for the forfeit.

Pros only argument appears to be that gun control is extreme - his opening round seemed to be an assertion that they should be banned rather than providing reasons. Likewise his own only other argument is that non lethal weapons can be used.

Cons argument is effectively built up of statistics, and arguing that banning weapons is counter productive. He also argues that non lethal alternatives are not sufficient for defense and to mitigate the harms of a ban.

Pro simply does not offer enough in his two generic and overly simplistic rounds to over turn these described harms, and thus arguments must be given to con too.

Neither side really defines or outlines what is meant by objective, so I am largely forced to frame both arguments against my interpretation of what Morality being objective means.

Cons argument is that morality is inherently subjective - because it is different for different people, multiple individuals could judge different scenarios differently, and it is largely a social construct. Con argues that as there is no universally accepted moral code, and as morality is more subjective and arbitrary than ethics.

Con argues that the source of the cues upon which moral and ethical decisions are notionally driven are not the same as the constructed moral framework that governs morality. Con goes further to specifically argue that many in built biological cues are programmed by social and cultural constraints, rendering even those implicitly subjective.

Pros argument, on the other hand primarily revolves around the idea of biological cues that drive morality being objective readings.

Pro points out these are both evolutionary in origin and objective by nature.

Pro concedes that con is correct, and argues mostly that the cues that drive morality objectively exist.

This appears to be largely semantic driven, made even more irksome as nobody defines the nature of what objective morality actually means.

Out of these two, pro appears to mostly be asserting his position, and without sources I have to rely on whether his arguments appear intuitively correct.

Con casts doubt on the idea that any two individuals would necessarily agree on the cues they receive for a given act they witness - and casts doubt on the link between Morality as framework and the cues that drive it. The former is most important as it more intuitively explains to me why morality can’t be agreed.

Pros argument that you can’t simply invent morality and claim its moral, and the argument that everyone receives moral cues seems against basic intuition - as this appears to be what innumerable religious groups appears to do. Are all these groups all denying their own cues for morality? Or are they simply training different cues. I don’t know, by simply asserting the former is not enough.

Due to this, and lack of any objective criteria that I can measure or interpret - as pro does not provide much in the way of specifics of examples - con manages fo establish the subjectivity of morality: thus arguments to con.

This did not appear to be a debate. The resolution wasn’t well defined - neither side argued for their end of the resolution, and what was argued seemed more an interrogation of one parties personal experience. As such, it was not fully clear how what either pro or con fit into the resolution tarmac ans so it was not possible to weigh the arguments, or individual burden.

As a result I am forced to tie arguments.

Conduct to con for the forfeits.

The resolutionThe resolution is that 5g internet is a death grid.

Pro goes to great lengths to show and explain how deadly 5g internet is due to the radio patterns.

Con points out that there doesn’t seem to have been a deadly outbreak in NYC where it has already been set up.

Con also points out the lack of cited evidence, reliance on YouTube videos rather than evidential sources, and the lack of any demonstrable fatalities.

Con argues that while there is the possibility, even the scientific data presented is not clear cut.

Pros remaining arguments are primarily just rehashes of the original points, or dismissing cons arguments and concerns.

There is very little, if any actually argument or evidence presented by pro: it mainly amounts to a number of unsubstantiated claims and accusations that are not tied together with justification, science or a cohesive argument.

Con on the other hand throws a large amount of doubt on this claim

Arguments to con.

Sources: pro relies heavily on YouTube videos, and blog posts - and provides no conclusive or concrete first hand data to the mix. The two groups “Ehsense” appears to be a largely advocacy organization rather than scientific, as does “ehtrust” which also appears to be run by a potentially discredited scientist according to Wikipedia’s. This grossly eroded pros warrant as a result.

Cons source however - is a citation of objective reality - effectively how can it be a death grid if it appears it’s already running without issue - using proof that it is actually installed without any apparent issues to demonstrate the resolution is false.

This clearly shows pros sources harm his point, and cons sources greatly establish his.

Sources to con.

The resolution here, is that science disproves a young earth. While I accept science proving that the earth is young would be valid to affirm: simply negating evidence that proves the earth is old is not sufficient.

C14: Con argues that C14 may not be indicative of an old earth as the amount of C14 in the atmosphere may have started at 0 and increased.

Pro provides sourced explanations of how the values of C14 can be confirmed - he then goes on to list a number of the other dating mechanisms, and also points out that tree ring evidence separately disproves the idea that C14 levels have been rising during the period of dating

The dating portion is dropped by con, and con merely dismisses the tree ring argument with a source, with out using specific examples or arguments.

Blue stars.

Cons argument is that blue stars should all have burned out by now. Pros rebuttal is that stars are being created all the time according to science. Cons rebuttal is that this hasn’t been observed to which pro rightly hammers home the observational evidence

Cons problem here is that the science appears to say that the stars have continued to form - con is arguing against the science - not that science shows his position is accurate.

Age of the universe.

Pro points out that the science indicates the universe is old, and the speed of light tends to indicate the universe can’t be old.

The resolution is about the earth, however, not the universe. So even if I accept the old universe, it doesn’t refute the resolution. As a result, I will not include this as confirming or negating the resolution.

Cons rant about science presuppositions was likewise ignored for similar reasons.

3additional points.

Pro raises 2 new and additional points in round 3, offering little argument. As pro made little effort to justify these, primarily asserting it with a source, I will not treat these as warranted.

Prediction:

“I asked my opponent to give me an objectively verifiable and novel prediction that a young earth makes exclusively. He admitted he can’t. End of story, debate is over.”

Pro asks for a prediction made by young earth. Not only did con not do so, but explained that he can’t.

As scientific explanations are required to be both supported by observation - AND falsifiable, the admission that there is no predictions that are possible means that young earth can implicitly be scientifically rejected.

Con offered no data or evidence for which he could reasonably conclude that the earth is young, the only attempt was c14 which was mostly contradicted with pros more scientific data and explanations.

Pros explanation of c14, and corroborating dating mechanisms imply the earth is not young, despite arguing outside the resolution for the majority.

As a result, pro is the only one who moved the needle in their direction. With con being particularly lacking.

Arguments to pro.

Sources: cons argument against pros sources was devastating, pointing out the inherently flawed and dishonest position taken by AiG, and other sources used by con.

Pros source cite multiple scientific sites, his radiocarbonand general dating arguments were sources from the nature.com journal, Berkeley and Arizona edu. A variety of academic sources lend substantial weight to these arguments, and demonstrate the rebuttal in a way that cons inherently (and self admitted) biased sources do.

Reviewing the ICR and creation links - both of these also have similarly boasted inherent biases in their about pages - and can be similarly discounted as either valid or unbiased scientific sites.

This means, the entire scientific basis for cons position is rendered wholly unreliable by the biased non-scientific sites used: but pros argument was massively bolstered by his own scientific sources.

Sources to pro.

Conduct: in round 3, pro attempted to mount a gish gallop by throwing multiple points and statements at pro, expecting him to refute them.

On their own, this is not sufficient for a conduct violation. What pushes this over the edge is pros primary arguments and rebuttals were both explained in detail, with links to the evidence, and what lends the position credibility.

While con starts out this way, he relies heavily on the dishonest sources, offering little in objective explanations and mostly speculation pulled directly from those links. This set up an inherently asymmetric debate - where pro was required to provide scientific day - and con could just throw out unsupported speculation, linked to a biased source and claim they were equal.

I feel this strategy was wholly unfair in what was billed as a science debate and makes it easy for con to drown out pros points with little effort and little truth to the counter-claims.

As a result, Conduct to pro.

Both sides are in agreement about teaching of law as a key agreement - the matter of argument is whether this teaching should be mandatory or optional.

The debate comes between an optional or a mandatory class. But con makes a better argument as to why teaching the law should be mandatory, and pro appears to agree with his case, arguing it should be a required elective.

As this resolution really boils down to semantics, I’m forced to decide based on my interpretation of the resolution. The resolution and the description appear to clearly imply an optional and non-required element - and as such I feel that both sides agreeing it should be required counts as con negating the resolution.

Arguments to con.

Conduct to pro for the forfeit.

Pros argument is lightly supported. He’s basically arguing that killing for any reason is unethical; this is not fully supported by the rest of his argument - where he primarily argues that killing is illegal and uses this as an ethical basis. The argument touched upon vigilantism a tiny amount, but the whole argument was exceptionally weak in general.

Con drops the entirety of Pros points - making both a minimal and dismissive argument that self defence will be perceived as better than the killed individual. Pro points out that relatively better does not mean that the action is ethical.

If this was part of a wider argument exchange where con argues a larger point - this may have been weighted differently, but as con offers nothing of note to the whole debate, I must accept pros argument as valid and sufficient in the face of no real argument

Arguments to pro.

1.) god is unlikely.

Pro argues god is unlikely. He does this by pointing out all the assumptions required to believe God. I don’t think this is likelihood as much as believability - but I won’t penalize in semantics.

Cons responses are that not believing in God requires faith too. Cons examples intuitively fail in my opinion - con is arguing that I must accept that believing in heaven is the same as believing the sun will rise. That fails to be convincing to me.

Pros counter here is good - pointing out that it is not taken on faith, but on track record of predictive success.

Cons argument that God is not magic, appears mainly semantic. In my view, miracles and magic require the suspension of the physical laws of the universe to achieve some aim that would otherwise be impossible - and as such while pejorative, both pro and cons description appear to require the same amount of faith.

2.) God not coherent with physics.

Pro argues that God is out of line with what is expected in physics, it’s impossible to postulate how God could work. This Appears to be mostly an extension of point 1

Cons rebuttal is that beginnings have causes, and the universe has a beginning. Pro points out that while God could explain the beginning, it is not necessary (there are other explanations)

3.) God is defined too many ways.

Pro points out the innumerable properties of God. Con points out that these are taken from multiple disparate Gods.

Pro points out that these are just from the Bible.

4.) Pascal’s wager

Even if I accept this argument on its face - either neither supports nor negated the resolution so will not be considered.

5.) as per 4.

Note: I would politely suggest that Q&A are not used, I have yet to see one that has any usefulness with regards to affirming or negating the resolution.

As a result of the above, pro upholds the first two main points, in my opinion. The third point is relating only to the Christian God, so works towards the resolution - but does not inherently affirm it.

As a result, on balance I feel that pro did a better job with the opening two points, and as they are fairly generic I feel he establishes his point on balance.

Arguments to pro - all other points tied.

“I'm the lord of the site
I'm a sword, your a knife
I'll take your neck and rearrange the cords and the pipes
in the form of a mic”

“your strategy is laughably average, weak and faggoty
it's sad to see how badly you rap, but please get mad at me
please attack me with savagery and audacity
I don't want to empathically have to feel the sense of tragedy
the embarrassment when you drag your feet
and get butthurt like a big fat sissy”

“I grow tired of your foolish faith based conclusions
your profusion of illusions insinuates the pre-natal contusions
from the failed abortion which produced him
RM the spectacle of such eclectical confusion
cause' you claim to be such a balanced human”

“You think you're a God of rap?
You ain't even got a sack
you're an amateur wad of crap
that's never even been on a track”

Frankly, this was one of the most one siddd of RMs rap battles, Sparrow had excellent rhymes, topical and hilarious disses (above), that managed to build through each stanza and end in a staccato bitch slap in multiple cases. While the final round tailed off, I have little else to fault: this rap was
Technically excellent, the flow was great, and I feel sorry for RM having to be on the receiving end.

RMs rap in the other hand - was short, had overly simplistic rhymes (whore/door/sore), was barely topical, nothing built up: and seems to be spending more time trying to contort rhymes than to try to make a decent quality insults. The majority didn’t seem to make much sense at all:

“But you can't stride with balance, subspecies to what this phantom menace is,”
“Kid fronting shit, porridge-spit learn to fold your sheets goldilocks before you sleep with bear in it premature whore,”

This was one of RMs worst ever raps.

I’m going to award sparrow 5 points. He deserves seven - but that just looks like a vote bomb.

This boils down to the nature of choice. Con elaborated on his position well throughout. Separating knowledge about the choice from the freedom of making that choice.

This is not an intuitive argument, but I get it. Specifically - it’s like knowing my daughter will pick chocolate over vegetables - even though she has the free choice.

This is actually a good argument, I felt it had more weight than it appeared at first glance.

Unfortunately, I believe pros point here is valid. If God chooses everything from the start, with a plan, with perfect knowledge he has the ability to set up the guiding factors of you, your life and your decisions in such a way that you could be led to make the right choice or the wrong choice.

Gods perfect knowledge is one part - but he is also the creator and has full control of everything.

That gives him at least indirect control over your free will, and his decision not to give you every chance to be saved in every way seems to support Calvinism.

As a result, pros argument wins here.

Arguments to pro.

Conduct to pro for the forfeit.

Pro setup a non classical relativistic approach to movement, indicating that objects can be moved relative to an observer of the observer is moved. I would like to have seen relativity cited more specifically, but this is just preference.

The unstoppable force point is a little laboured with his reference to reactive force, but it’s enoufh for the initial burden.

Con offers little in response, amounting to a semantic trick. If there isn’t a counter to stop the force, or force to move the object: they are technically unstoppable or unloveable. Even if this is true it doesn’t render them unstoppable. Can’t be stopped is not the same as wont be stopped.

In cons final round - it’s not even clear what the justification is - and due to it being cinal round can’t be challenged.

As a result, pros opening is unrefuted. Arguments to pro.

Counter vote bomb.

Full forfeit

Starting off glossing over the initial confusion, the main contention pro attempts to show is that the best explanation for the universe is that there is no God.

Con offers the KCA in support of God, it was brief, but well formed.

Pros response was kinda four fold. That an uncaused first cause isn’t necessarily God, That the universe can’t have been created as time came into existence at that point, so there was no before. That it’s not known whether everything that began to exist requires a cause as this is just our observation of our world. The final response from pro is basically stating that the KCA is special pleading.

Cons response is effectively to try and argue that pro has an exceptional burden of proof, where he has to show that God is impossible; the framing of the debate is that “no god is the most likely scenario”. Con points out a set of speculative properties of God being outside the laws of physics. Con points out that despite pros contention - that God does have specific uses.

Pro replies that con is defining God in a way that is unfalsifiable. Pro also points out that pro is attempting to misconstrue the argument. Con also argues that pro is arguing from popularity concerning the reasons why God is useful.

On the three issues of Kalam. Con defends by saying that an uncaused first cause is what God is. It’s hard for me to judge this without a definition of God. I am staggered by the number of times debaters on both sides don’t define terms!

The second point was arguing that God exists outside the laws of physics - which isn’t so much of a defense given the issue of the resolution above.

The third issue I think con confuses - pro is using that things require a cause and the universe may not as an attack on the first premise. Con appears to be arguing the logic applies to the argument as a whole.

Finally con again argues that pro has the burden of proof for the claim.

In the final round, pro argues that the uncaused first cause isn’t God, and the link between God and the cause isn’t established by Kalam.

This is mostly rehashed by both sides in the final round.

Reviewing everything, in the context of the debate as framed in the description and opening round: this debate isn’t about proof or disproof - but of plausibility and as a best explanation.

In this vein, pro outlines a set of good reasons why God not existing is the best explanation. Cons inability to explain how the KCA linked to a being (commonly understood as God for me - as god wasn’t defined), and his repeated reliance on claiming pro hasn’t disprove God makes me feel that pro established his burden.

Arguments to pro.

Conduct: in the last few rounds, pro became increasingly petulant. This includes:

“My opponent seems to master the art of commiting strawman fallacies.”
“I wish you would be honest in representing my argument.”
“Those are obfuscating language(or a "word salad" in lay terms).”

Pro was respectful throughout, and I felt pro crossed the line with his language in the final round.

Conduct to con.

Full forfeit

Full forfeit.

Cons. Memes do not show. Pro wins by default as he posted the only valid meme.

Conduct to pro for the forfeits.

Cons only argument relates to injuries and the possibility that airsoft can injure, pro adeptly parries by comparing this to multiple other sports or scenarios.

Pros opening round that pointed out that other types of replica Guns are allowed and so airsoft guns shouldn’t be banned as a result does help justify the lack of harm in airsoft guns. As a result, I feel pro establishes his burden in r1, and con does establish theirs.

Arguments to pro.

Pro made a basic argument to relating to oligarchy, pro makes a similarly light counter, “Even if what you say is true, why can one class not be benevolent towards the other?”, this enough to cast doubt on pros point - but isn’t enough to justify his part of the resolution, this leads to a draw being the only rational conclusion.

Counter vote bomb

Only con offered an argument. Arguments to con.

Why does neither side define Calvinism? Ugh! So my understanding after googling it, is that the events of the world are predestined - and those who are saved do not get to chose, its down to Gods implicit choice.

Con starts out by pointing out the major theological issues with Calvinism: specifically he points out that scriptures make repeated reference to everyone being redeemable.

Pros opening round primarily just explains what Calvinism is. It does not appear to lay out a specific justification for why this is the correct interpretation of the bible.

Cons rebuttal of the premise continues - pointing out it means that God would be directly involves in the creation of sin, and points out some additional scriptural quotes where the idea of free choice appears to refute the concept of predestination. Con drops a very intuitive example of children in a test that clearly explains why this logic is incorrect.

Reading through pros entire round 2, this appears to be, primarily an attempt to explain how a Calvinistic interpretation could be correct despite appearing to have a number of flaws. There are a lot of points to individually list here - but reading this round twice, there is no justification: any argument to explain why Pros position is correct, it appears mostly an assertion that he is correct, then using examples to explain contradictions.

This pattern is repeated into round 3, where the most relevant portions involve con pointing out the scriptural weakness of pros position, and why it seems to not make sense in terms of generalized understanding of the bible and what God wants for everyone.

Pros round 3 again, constitutes more of an attempt to explain how he can reconcile Calvinism with the Bible - but does not justify the claim itself.

This really continues as the pattern between round 4 and finally 5. There is a lot of back and forth on whether a Calvinistic explanation is contradicted by the bible, but still there doesn’t appear much in the way of outright justification from pro.

If the resolution was Calvinism is compatible with the Bible, I may have had a different vote - but as it is whether Calvinism is True - and pro did not provide a justification to this effect - arguments must be awarded to con.

All other points tied.

Full forfeit. Joshua didn’t do much better, but at least had one more round

Full Forfeit

While the DDO one was good, the rest were groaners and largely unfunny from con. Pro had better and more topical memes in general. Loved the “me when a mod deletes a vote”.

My reading of this resolution boils down to tautology.

IE: that you can define things or use mathematic proofs to make a logically true statement. I don’t see much of a difference between the two points.

Con rebuttal was ok - in that it very much rules out knowing anything about the universe or outside our own experiences for true - by arguing that humans reasoning is inherently faulty - but it completely misses the logically tautological.

Pros rebuttal here points out the issue with cons human reasoning argument - that it’s very specific to the individuals. That one human could make faulty logic but doesn’t mean others are wrong - but it doesn’t introduce a very interesting question:

How do you know that your view of a price of knowledge being 100% is true or not - if we know we have faulty reasoning?

I feel pro actually misses this point in his rebuttal.

In cons second round. He hits this home harder - how do we know our certainty isn’t due to mental disorder or faulty logic (like scizophrenia)?

Redundantly - he attempts to question the nature of statements of existence: we may know a fact is true - but given that truth is predicated on existence, if that is not certain, the inherent truth is not certain either. I don’t think this was a particularly strong case. It seems too specific - ie i don’t know how it applies to a wider set of examples.

Pro continues by pointing out the logical issue with the king of France examples, and explains why tautologies don’t suffer from this same issue.

There’s more back and forward on this part as the debate progresses, but imo is really overshadowed by the two real issues that spill out.

The questions, I read : but don’t seem particularly useful or elaborative.

So: basically, the entire argument boils down to whether we can be certain of what is in our own brains. I believe con introduced an amazing doubt - which I was not expecting him to - about whether what we, personally perceive is True or not. I agree that a tautology may not be truly tautology, I could just be mentally ill and think it is. No matter how unlikely, the chance is not 0% - so this point goes to con.

I could have covered most of the arguments in more depth, but for this point - it uniquely undermines every logical point pro raised: if I cannot be 100% certain that I am not insane and everything is an illusion of my own irrationality, repeatable though it may be - I cannot be certain of anything.

As a result: arguments to con. All other points tied.

Considering that neither side here defines What they actually mean by God (slap!), I am forced to piece together the definition. I’ll deal with that at the end.

Pro starts off with a set of justifications as to why the concept of Gods should be ruled out by default.

He starts by explaining the omni god and their properties a logical contradictory. He raises the typical problem of evil, and uses the contradictions inherent to rule this God out.

He goes on to rule out lesser gods that adhere to the laws of physics. This seems much more tenuous a position in my view - and it’s not fully clear whether there are any Gods in between.

The God by definition argument - imo does a reasonable Job of ruling out - or at an explanation for why evidence is required of Gods by definition.

The metaphysical argument - smacks of special pleading - and feels as if pro is simply trying to rule out Gods by definition. The logic seems to be incredibly sneaky to me, and doesn’t feel intuitive as it doesn’t feel as if Pro has truly covered all bases.

Cons opening argument is a typical Kalam and Ontological arguments. These are well presented and they work as they appear prima facia intuitive.

Pros rebuttal here is one of the best take downs of the ontological argument I’ve seen: pro points out that pro is jumping from a possibility to an actuality in a hidden step - providing a modified of premise 2 version that follows better and specifically highlights the logical error the OA makes. The take down explains his the replacement of does exist with possible clearly undermines the whole position. This was excellent.

The KCA take down was just as good. Again, one of the best.

To start with, pro points out we have never seen anything that has begun to exist - everything is made from something else - and this is the first time I’ve seen this argument. It uniquely specifies why we can’t make the determination from the first premise.

The second part was also unique - when modifying Kalam to use formed from something else (which is all we have ever seen), it loses its intuitive power.

In my view both these points were excellent take downs.

Cons rebuttal uses the free will argument to challenge the problem of evil. I feel this rebuttal was exceptionally generic, con needed to take the fight to con and challenge on specific arguments and issues using examples. As the PoE is intuitive, the argument presented by con fails to really explain what it is about the formulation that is wrong.

Con also doesn’t fully offer a rebuttal to “omni Gods” other than the issue of KCA infinite regress issue.

As this is the last round by con, I feel I can summarize at this point.

In the end, pros position here is a bit pokey - but there is enough there for me to feel he’s met his initial burden of proof. It feels like the are gaps in his definitions, but as these were pointed out, it would really be my opinion. As a result, I feel with cons forfeits and lack of a significant counter, I have to side with pro.

Arguments to pro.

Conduct to pro for the forfeit.

Concession.

Full forfeit

The first thing to note is that pro does not offer a concrete definition of fake news. This allows con to dominate with the definition - cons attempt to reiterate the definitions lead to a confused and arbitrary definition where it is still largely unclear as to how the flohrase fake news applies.

My issue with the resolution - is that not only does pro need to prove that articles and bias are intentionally leading to false stories - but as he claims CNN as a whole is “fake news”, he has to show this is systematic in cnn.

Pro offers four examples, Smollett, Covington, negative press against Trump, and a collection of claims about Russia. There was a throwaway comment about Acosta which wasn’t detailed enough to weigh.

For the first two, pro offers only asserted conclusions- that CNN rushed to judgement therefore it was purposefully dishonest much of the time - I feel the conclusion doesn’t automatically follow from the premise - and pro offers no arguments to convince me it does: nor does he offer any evidence that there is a wider intentional dishonesty other than these two examples; nor does he offer evidence of intent to mislead.

For the example of negative press coverage - if I assume this is factually correct, this is only evidence of widespread dishonesty if pro also shows the press coverage should not be 90% negative - which he does not; or that the specific coverage is broadly unfair - which he also does not.

The remaining Russian related points pro raises constitute a general assertion that Russian Collusion was a lie, and a couple of examples of members of CNN staff lessening the significance of Russia. In the complete absence of specific context or any detail - pro does not provide me a reason to believe that Van Jones believing that Russian Collusion is a big nothing burger means that the entirety of CNNs reported narrative is deliberately dishonest -likewise pro doesn’t offer an argument as to why the producers comments that there’s no big proof (or the rest) demonstrate their coverage is overly unfair or dishonest. At best it’s a type of heresay - rather than evidence.

Cons rebuttal to the Russian point was short - but brutal. He simply asked pro to show which of the Russian stories are made up. Pro was not able to answer this point. This is particularly devestating as it makes it apparent that despite pros wide ranging claims that the Russian narrative was faked, lies, made up - he is unable to point to a single one of the multiple stories that is actually fake. This point alone, and pros inability to show an example of where CNNs Russian narrative was fake as he claimed - demonstrates how vacuous pros position is.

The remaining issues really boils down to definitions of what fake news is: “CNN is fake news”, in my view cannot be taken to mean simply that one or two stories are inaccurate and get corrected, as con explained and justified with concrete definitions - there must be intent to deceive, and imo there must be substantial patterns of misbehaviour.

As pros primary evidences are offered prima facia as evidence of bias, bad content and fakery - yet cannot be reasonably interpreted to support the contention prima facia; this means pro doesn’t provide the necessary warrant for his main claims about Jesse Smollet, Covington, and Pro simply destroys pros fake collusion narrative with his unanswered question.

Arguments to con.

Conduct to con for the forfeit.

All other points tied.

Pros entire argument is predicated on the idea that A is suited for B, and as a result A was intended to be used for B.

Pro actually does a good job of making this feel intuitive by using examples of human design to illustrate the point. However it is a bit old argument from incredulity at its heart - relying on incredulity as to how such seemingly matched functions could somehow not be designed.

Cons response in his opening round is basically demanding pro actively prove that there is a creator that intentionally designed life. I agree to a point - but I expect con to provide his own proof.

Pro mostly ignores cons argument and simply throws more examples and implausibilties - the same old argument from incredulity.

Con does better in R2: he provides a very generalized argument from evolution. But it’s a bit of a mess - he doesn’t cover the main issues pro raises, by taking just one specific example, and providing an evidenced explanation (not of the evolution itself - but how that trait can arise using evolutionary principles). Cons explanation here is so generic it’s more like waving a magic wand than an explanation.

Pro goes on to raise a series of issues with pros argument, and while a bit repetitive clarifies his issue: his brain example and pathway was a bit sloppy, but his argument about tracing DNA was good, at setting up a falsifiable question.

Con at this point should have knocked this debate out of the park, as tracing ancestry should have been trivial, however cons round 3 seems mostly irrelevant to the debate - talking about mutations being random rather than dealing with any of the issues raised.

The next round was accidentally skipped due to the posting - and isn’t being considered as there are no argument.

In the final round, pro raises a series of similar issues to the ones already raised and answers cons question about why evolution happens if it doesn’t need to. Pros response was that life doesn’t evolve. This is not a great answer, but is unrefuted by con - as are the remaining points.

Other than objecting to pro raising additional points (which are mostly variations on the same point) - con has no response.

While I believe pros argument is factually lacking, it is still based on what appears to be an intuitive basis.

Con plain and simply doesn’t do enough to explain why pros examples are wrong and provides not much more than a generalized explanation that doesn’t fully address the points made by pro. The inability of con to rebut directly refute any point raised in R3 - and to not offer any real argument after his round 2 (R3 appears to be almost completely irrelevant), basically makes it impossible for me to take his side - on one of the few topics I feel can almost invariably be a complete slam dunk win for con with only a trivial amount of effort.

This boils down to whether the actions and conduct of the senator are sufficiently poor and sufficiently harmful to warrant having an egg thrown at him.

I believe the default position is to view an egg attack as far less serious than a punch: other than a possibility of allergy, chance of salmonella; it’s unlikely to cause physical harm, and is more an act to physically ridicule than to physically harm. Unless show otherwise, I will not view this attack in the same category as -say - the alt right guy being punched in the face.

However the default position is also imo that public figures should not be attacked for a superficial reasons, or anything outside of an exceptional set of circumstances.

That being said, pro and con both separate their arguments quickly: to con portraying this as an assault for no other reason than a difference of opinion. Pro portrays this as an attack on a prominent public figure who portrays dangerous or unreasonable views that are actively detrimental to a group of individuals.

So with that, I feel that pro has burden of proof:

So with that let’s move on. I feel pro does a good job of elaborating on Fraser’s hard right record. I don’t believe con managed to show the positions were not extreme, or are harmful - merely argued that other people agreed with them. While con does do some work on trying to justify the details of Annings quotes, I think pro does enough to convince me (via depth of tweets, letters, etc). To explain that FA holds extreme views that are potentially harmful to individuals - I don’t think pros explanations really do enough - nor do I think his own support for some of these broad positions refute the specific. severity of the quotes and examples.

Con also, at the end of his first round and throughout the second, distances his argument from a blanket justification of violence against anyone: but specifically points out that FA is in a position of power that gives him an ability to actualize his views - whilst the “many others” that agree with him do not.

In my view con does well here to elevate the severity based on FAs position - he could have gone further, but I feel this was sufficient.

Con pointed out the contributing factor that brought about the attack - which was a specific comment about a terrorist attack against Muslims. I feel con very much undersold this, and was very matter of fact on this point. There was a lot of space to grow.

Pro attempts to mitigate some of these attacks: firstly that these positions are shared opinions by many (I feel con blunted this above). Pro also attempted to mitigate this by pointing out the criminality is wills act, and the fact that will admitted it was wrong.

This is in a very grey area - one that which con argues is an argument from authority. The reason I say this is Grey is that will only got a caution, rather than any major penalty - which implies it wasn’t a big deal; and also because I believe the default position is that there is sometimes disparities between what is illegal and what can be justified (theft of bread when starving - as an example).

As such I don’t feel that it being illegal is necessarily a prima facia reason to claim the attack was unjustified.

The admission of wrong doing, on the other hand is the only argument made that I feel moves the needle towards con prodoes well enough here to explain that admission of wrong doing doesn’t necessarily mean the action was wrong. In some ways I feel that this is also in the same sort of grey area as the police aspect.

All told, I believe pro had the bigger job here. He had to show what was sufficiently bad about FA to warrant an egg, why this wouldn’t apply to everyone in a way that would necessitate random eggings if anyone, what precipitated the event, and why it was substantial enough to warrant the reaction. I believe pro did all these things - though he could have done more in several cases.

Finally: If this debate had been about “was it right”, or “was it legal” - the winner may have been judged differently, but in terms of justified - I believe pro has it, even though we may not necessarily condone, think it is a fair or correct action.

As a result: arguments to pro.

All other points tied. I considered awarding sources here, but haven’t for two reasons, firstly - I don’t think the arguments were sufficiently good to warrant one side winning by 5 points. Secondly while the sources were objective, and laid out matters of fact that helped support pros position - they were subjectively argued about subjective information (FAs beliefs). If pro had shown a credible objective harm (such as someone acting as a result of a FA tweet), this may have been different.

To start off with, I’m going to start with general points. There’s lots of Christians, so I’m going to give pro a little leeway in the resolution. I will also aim for “on balance disadvantageous” the resolution wasn’t entirely clear - but was my interpretation of it. I’m also going to go for a little leeway in terms of “Christianity” and “Christians” If Christianity is advantageous but there is no one who technically follows it, it won’t count.

So with that in mind - let’s deal with arguments.

While there are a too many individual points raised to mention them all - the primary thrust from pro is that adherence to Christianity introduces negative impacts to individual individuals - this harm is entirely predicated on God not existing. This harm is only a harm if something neither side shows, or provides probability of is true.

If God exists - then none of these points appear valid. Midway through round 3: pro makes a probability argument - based on science and logic disproving key Christian claims, and that there are multiple other religions. This is touched upon a little bit, but not thrashed out to any meaningful degree. It feels almost like a throwaway point.

In cons opening round, he placed an objective counter claim, supported by evidence that objectively provides an advantage to Christianity whether or not it’s wrong. I would have accepted it as un-refuted had I not been told to disregard it.

Saying this, a small thread that ran through this entire debate was that it’s not clear what the right version of Christianity even is, and that in its own right is disadvantageous. Though it’s mostly teased as a side note: rather than thrashed out as its own point

Pro did do a bit better on these grounds, but this wasn’t tethered to a real harm or explained particularly well imo.

The argument here was lengthy, and really amounted to just back and forth arguments about the meaning and implications of Christianity. It was all mostly subjective arguments that glossed over this key disagreement of Gods existence.

While pro has burden of proof here, I feel con had a duty to hammer home the subjectivity of pros argument in this vein - but really only touched upon it as a request. As the debate went on, I felt that con really just began rejecting pros claims - and a little debate fatigue set in (or my own fatigue as a reader)

It boils down to his arguments about multiple disparate religions, and disproof of God making it more unlikely that “christianity” that an individual follows is objectively correct or will cause the negative effects listed above to be realized without redress.

In my view con does not do enough to address these points consistently, so I am almost forced to accept that there is at least a reasonable doubt about God’s existence and the validity of any individual christian claim. Con needed to either spend most of his time proving God, or muddying the water for this aspect to be refuted - as he didn’t, imo from this the harms introduced by pro follow.

Arguments to pro.

Conduct: round 4 nearly made me award this to con due to pros snarky comments:

“Dodging more questions I see.“
“Okay Mr. Smart Guy.”
“Okay Dodgy McDodgerson”

But there was not enough to award it otherwise.

All other points tied.