Total votes: 861
FF ⠀
FF vs FF where Pro's FF had R1 posted.
FF ⠀
R3: Therefore, I concede this debate and urge you to vote for PRO."
R3: "I concede. I got bopped lol." Said by Con.
2/4F ⠀
FF ⠀
C ⠀
FF/C ⠀
FF ⠀
FF ⠀
FF ⠀
FF ⠀
FF⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
Pro did two things wrong in this debate, despite being on the objectively correct side. I don't know how he even made these errors as I have personally outside of this debate provided him the killer proofs that 0.999... is not equal to 1.
The first thing he did wrong was to bother using the erroneous algebra construct that people use to hocus pocus 0.999... to be equal to 1, then to replace it with 999.0 (instead of 999.999... which would indeed end up making it equal to 1000.000 and that's the whole point, that algebra construct enables erroneous conversion). This was correctly attacked by Con, albeit with strange wording, in the following Round. Con of course is erroneous because the attack Con uses is that 0 can't follow infinite 9's. What Con should have argued was that the number at the start was not at all like 0.999... since it doesn't have infinite 9's following the decimal point.
Pro does start to tackle this in the way I have introduced Pro to outside of this debate but Pro does it wrong. Instead of pointing out that if 0 can't follow infinite 9's, neither can the imaginary '9' at the end of it all, Pro decides to play around even more with the abusive algebra which Pro should be showing is corrupt because you can't reverse engineer it (the fact you can never start with 1 and end up with 0.999... means that there is clearly something erroneous about the algebra, even if you completely flip around the equations, you never end up with 0.999... at the start, this key way of negating the algebra isn't employed by Pro in the entire debate). Pro starts to keep almost joking around with his 'proof' that 0.999... is not equal to 1 with some really confusing algebraic display that tries to show you can make something else happen with algebra and infinite series that involve 9. This had nothing to do with the debate. What Con does is also very silly and minimalistic, but I know why Con did that. Con is on the side that is a lie, therefore Con's best bet at winning is to avoid going into details and depth and instead sticking to rhetoric like "a 0 can't follow infinite 9's therefore you are wrong" well, neither can a 9... But Pro doesn't hit that point home.
Neither side brought up the 1/3 - 0.333... angle, this is a much stronger case for Con to make as it's backed up by school syllabus content (which lies but is considered highly reliable due to what it is). This then means that 1/3 * 3 technically equals 0.999... and the only way for Pro to counter it is to expose that 1/3 does not equal 0.333... but instead equals 0.333...0333...0333 infinitely over and over again. Pro doesn't do this but Con doesn't bring it up.
Since this debate is structured with Pro having the burden of proof and since Con does kind of 'hit home' a point about that 0 can't follow infinite 9's and pro doesn't turn it back on Con with the '9' following the infinite 9's, Con takes the win.
" Plagiarism/spam.
The line from pro "Much of this money is tied up in diversified wealth funds, which some would object to as not counting as real state ownership." Is visible on a half dozen other websites, and is not attributed to be a quotation, nor is it a line of rhetoric. "
- Ragnar
Concession
FF ⠀
NEVER DO THE DIRTY DODODOODODODEODEODODEODEODEOEWOGOIHWHWOIH
This was a genuinely giggle-worthy debate for me to read. Both sides thought they had the other cornered but both had gaping holes in their cases.
Pro didn't actually point out a single flaw in the constitution. Declaring war doesn't mean the decleration need be executed by the Executive Branch, nor that they can't be held accountable ASAP for fallacious justification for war, by the Judicial Branch. Con says 'but you can amend it, it's organic and that's the beauty of it the flaws are with those interpreting it.' and what I liked was that he allowed the flaws in his case to become the flaws in Pro's. Here is how Con won the debate:
Con said that the one(s) interpreting the Constitution are flawed by default. When and if they come up with a decent enough flaw in it, it has covered its own bases because when they amend it, they are obeying it. Pro says this is a ridiculous concession to make but how else was Con supposed to win? Pro says 'vitally flawed' but what was so vitally flawed, when it can all be amended and still remain true to itself?
Con didn't even lift a finger after Round 1 but it was hilarious to me because Con was pointing out that the interpreter of the resolution (Pro) is either flawed or is supposed to suggest an amendment to the Constitution and either way would be obeying it. Pro had to explain why the flaws were 'vital' but never did so in any explicit manner.
FF
FF
Rule 1 was broken by Pro.
⠀
FF
FF
Pro slipped up.
Both sides used sources sufficiently, no need to talk about that beyond mentioning that it's tied for that reason. Same with S&G and Conduct.
For me this debate boils down to a flawed issue in all 'this vs that' debates; you're making arbitrary lines of judgement masquerade as objective. That's flawed, period. The word 'best' wasn't defined or expanded upon by either side. This means that the voter is completely able to justify voting either way due to what they arbitrarily think 'best' should be out of what's discussed, and that's exactly what I'm going to do right now.
While conceding that there's no data on NA, he further agrees that FS has a 0% botch rate... Even though he mentioned in another area of debate that missing the target (which is botching it) can cause severe pain, bleeding out slowly and resulting in a lot of hassle in between the shot and the time to reload and randomise the bullet again, not to mention the trauma for the ones doing it (as while all are equally exempt from it, all are equally guilty of it which is a point I don't know why Con never brought up, to backfire and debunk the 'everyone is not guilty' psychological benefit of FS).
To compensate for the lack of data on NA, Con seeks to tell us that being suffocated and forced unconscious so you can die from your oxygen starved heart, brain, lungs and muscles cramping and shutting down is somewhat strange. I get it, we are to assume that we reliably 'know' that the person isn't experiencing the agony in their unconscious state, can't hear what's going on or feel sensations... Even if that is all true, why did Pro not focus very hard on the fact that FS wrongly aims for the heart instead of the brain? Why would you not first shoot the brain to ensure the dying person can't feel any of the things going on? Why didn't Pro amend FS to aim for the brain instead? There's quite a few lines of creative rebuttal and attack/defense that I saw neither side take and given the supposed calibre of debater, it irked me is all.
The debate basically became Pro winning on all counts in my eyes. Pro proved that it was more reliable (extremely so, 100% official success rate in the US etc), that NA has just as much trauma involved potentially (if not more, as the one administering it knows they're dealing the killing blow, which he explicitly highlights that FS doesn't allow) and that while Con keeps going on about 'too many people in the US will throw a hissy fit about FS! Oh no, don't do it!', Pro points out that there's no clear consensus of supporting NA in the first place, so why are we to assume it is a safer bet?
Con lost in my eyes, I justified it here.
Conduct for 3/5 rounds FF and 2-sentence reply in R2 only.
I can't split the points, so there's that.
One purchases with currency, currency can't purchase. This was a trap debate that the trapper didn't pull off well, but which the Ramshutu+Ragnar school of voter would vote Con anyway for the trap.
Con fails to define the word 'buy' in the definitions. I know why this was avoided. Con's case is flawed because Currency cannot purchase, it's the means of purchasing. The entire case is about that money can BRING happiness VIA its use, not purchase happiness. I knew this trap would backfire on me if I accepted it, I've annihilated semantic traps before and been voted against for doing so, even when I was the one to reverse the trap on the other side (the one that wrote the resolution). Thus, I personally have no sympathy for Con here. Pro's case is that happiness is not directly proportional to happiness whatsoever (not sure if he was trying to prove a negative proportionality, but Kritiking the positive correlation was certainly the crux.
For me, the debate is won because while Con asserts that money CAN be associated with the alleviation of agony of some, it ignores entire slums that have a happy community and much else but Pro keeps 'barely alluding' to everything that does contradict Con, but doesn't DIRECT this back to the resolution.
The problem here, for me, is that it's very easy to say 'well duh buy means to purchase' but you cannot purchase 'the act of being happy' even with money. This is what Pro does successfully, but passively. Pro explains that the correlation between money and happiness is not only very scattered, but there is not even a clear cut way to 'buy happiness' in the first place. Alleviation of pain and suffering is not the same thing as the definition that Con provides, which is 'the act of being happy'. There is a whole abyss, involving masochism or 'getting used to suffering and being happy anyway.' that plays into being poor and happy. This is talked strongly about by Pro in the final Round:
"My sole point is there are nations full of people who have very little in the way of material goods but lead casual happy lives and then there are people in places like say singapore that are very rich where the people are so unhappy because all they do is work"
To which Con replies that there is a link between not being a capitalist shithole that doesn't care for its poor and having happy citizens (which Pro supported, throughout). Sorry but just because Pro was a poor debater doesn't mean he lost the debate. Just because he copy and pasted doesn't mean that Con gave a better argument. There is genuinely no grounds on which Con won the debate in my eyes, this is not about a grudge. I am losing a debate against Bill due to one conduct point vote, due to forfeiting one single Round. I know he is a low Rating debater and this loss will hurt. That is not an excuse to be lazy, most likely Con will win anyway.
Both sides used sources effectively enough.
60% F
FF
C
FF
I have been asked by Exile to vote on this debate and will do so with no bias whatsoever.
At the time of posting this, to my knowledge, both users identify as male so such pronouns will be used.
In my eyes this debate is absolutely tied for three reasons:
1. Both sides equally fight for a BoP that makes their side the truism.
2. Both sides interact with the other by disregarding everything they say as relevant to the debate, despite giving nothing that would be relevant to the debate that the opponent wants to have.
3. While Pro goes through effort to prove that Vaping is entitled to remain a legal drug that shouldn't be abolished (yet), Con corner Pro into admitting that there is no real benefit to having it. In fact, a point that Club could have brought up is that if you do want the pleasure of smoking then why not go for the real thing with all the wonderful flavours, sensations etc. Why settle for vaping at all? (that would seem suicidal but as RM I respect kamikaze debating a lot, when it tears your opponent even further into hell than you go, because debating is about pure manipulation of logic, not about actually respecting it).
The reason that Con should objectively have gone kamikaze and done the method in my third reason for it tying (since he didn't do it) is that it sandwiches Pro into fighting off one angle with freedom to take drugs you like and fight off on another angle, the quality of the drug you're taking vs that of the real thing, in terms of pleasure of the experience.
The problem is that Club never sandwiches the BoP properly, enabling Pro to keep running 'the other way' and portraying a narrative of pleasure via drugs being an option all should be entitled to once old enough and that vaping is overall a not-so-harmful drug. On the other hand, Club does mitigate this with the example of lung disease from vaping THC and such, but he just mentions it. Barely expanding on a point and not truly hitting home that you're bringing up a completely decimating rebuttal to the entire case of Pro by explaining that THC, when smoked via vapes can actually kill people brutally, making them froth at the mouth etc. almost like a chemical acid attack, is far worse than the real 'weed', especially when taken on the most vulnerable to persuasion; the young adults / old teens, it really would have destroyed Pro MUCH MORE than Con realised. Con just left it at that and keeps hitting home that Vaping needn't be considered at all, because you don't need drugs for pleasure.
I reiterate, Con is on the side of this debate that enables the one debating it the ability to sandwich the opponent via BoP. He didn't take that but he DID ensure, through very soft barely developed hints at rebuttals via evidence brought forth and mentions of the harms not really outweighing the total lack of need (risk vs reward). Nonetheless, Pro defined the debate as one about whether vaping should be legal and allowed to exist for consenting angles to experience as a form of drug-triggered pleasure. It is clear neither side was having the same debate as the other.
Con was debating whether Vaping is good or bad for you, Pro was proposing the resolution that Vaping should be legalised. I don't understand how we can even say 'by default Pro gets to define the resolution' when it's Con who instigated the debate... Lol.
Both sides used sources fairly well, Con failed to truly develop on points when using them (explaining what points of Pro are most hit by the sources etc) but he does use the sources accurately and they are reliable, as were Pro's.
Ramshutu was allowed to tie a vote on a debate where my opponent conceded. Maybe get a fucking grip or something?
FF
Con forfeits 2 Rounds, laughs at his opponent 'splitting hairs' and clearly doesn't try at all. Thus, conduct to Pro.
Only Pro used sources, one helped clarify how to get decimals from fractions, the other helped verify that he is using a genuine, respected proof of 0.9r(ecurring) being equal to 1.
I want us to take note that 0.1r * 9 clearly is not equal to 1, just to make it clear why both equations abuse 10*variable and 9*variable situations and neither works backwards to get the other, between 0.9r and 1. Thus, I want it to be crystal clear that Pro is incorrect if we analyse the logic fully, I say this for the sake of clarifying that Con lost due to not trying, not due to the opponent having very strong arguments. Because Con's only arguments were that 1 can only be equal to 1 and that Pro is splitting hairs, without slightly touching on Pro's logic it therefore follows that Pro was handed the win.
.6 F
⠀
Both Con and Pro identify as male in their profile.
Con's only use of a source was one he didn't even link to, just mentioned the company/publisher as Britannica and the actual quoted stuff all either contradicted his case, or was irrelevant to the debate. On the other hand, Pro used sources to back up what he was saying and each use supported his case that standard of living and quality of life were different things. Con's maximal use of source was solely in showing that both had comfort involved but that was not at all how to win the debate and the very quotes showed differences in and of themselves between the two.
Both sides were extremely lazy, thus conduct is tied. Con tried to lazily make Pro lose due to Pro not having shown them to be entirely different, with zero similarities, and Pro tried to do the 'exact same' to Con by saying that Con had failed to show how they were completely the same, with zero differences.
Con couldn't have won this debate even if he tried but if he had tried to perhaps define this as an 'on balance' debate, he had to surely show far more than just one factor (comfort) as the unifying trait/s to conclude that SL and QL are the same. Pro wins by presenting the case that Canada, for instance, has a higher avergae quality of life for its citizens than the US despite the US having greater standard of living (on paper) for its citizens.
To combat this, Con almost concedes the entire debate by stating the following:
"I know that you can have a bad quality of life but a good standard of living, but the problem is, we are not arguing about that, WE ARE DEBATING ABOUT IF THEY'RE DIFFERENT OR NOT. "
The entire lowercase part of the quote contradicts the uppercase part of the quote, in terms of Con's side of things. You wouldn't be able to have a bad QL with good SL if they weren't different.
Pro point this out in the next Round, making it the rebuttal that single-handedly won the debate even without Pro having made a single argument before or afterwards (not that they didn't play into my vote, as I explained).
C
Neither side discussed the resolution. Con says Pro never met BoP but Con never lays out what BoP there is in any Round before the one where Pro can no longer reply.
Con copy and pastes WIkipedia introductions to Socialism and Fascism, doesn't put them in quotation boxes and only gives any credit to the original source by making the bolded words (which were bolded by Wikipedia anyway) link to the Wikipedia URL. This is lazy, deceptive use of sources as was the way that meeting BoP was only discussed in a Round where Pro no longer could meet it or argue back that they had a more passive BoP to meet than the one that Con demanded there and then.
Con pastes definitions and says that Pro has to give proof of an 'anti thing' while Con gives zero proof of the actual intellectual Americans or that Americans support intellectualism. I used to be a lazy debater but I have seen first-hand that this is too lazy to qualify as a true win. The worst part of Con's conduct, I feel, is that what Pro was doing with pasting the videos was giving the 'data' demanded by Con to show anti-intellectualism by Americans and all that Con does in response is decribe each with a biased narrative and fails to ever, once, explain that the pasted Wikipedia definitions are not themselves evidence of how meaningless and perverted that the words have become. For example, if Con had simply expanded on the definitions and explained the difference between them as well as what the words inside the definitions meant, in the context of politics, law, history etc. then he would have got the win, in my eyes.
Conduct to Pro because Con unfairly tries to control the dynamic of the debate throughout, only telling Pro they had to meet a BoP more so than Con did in a Round when Pro no longer could meet that BoP, nor reply to it. This is compounded by the Round 1 ending, where Con dictates to Pro what to present data on and then in Round 2 punishes Pro for trying to present the demanded data. Pro is new to debating and performed poorly but Con tried to capitalise on it in the laziest way possible and I don't approve of it.
Con used sources more actively as he had context to the copy+pasted exerpts and is exact on what part of the source to look at (Pro didn't even timestamp where in the videos to look).