Total votes: 861
Full forfeit
whatever, it was an event
Conceded debate
Oromagi you filthy master baiter
De facto FF. To me it defaults arguments and conduct but sources were indeed used by Con as was S&g sufficient so I feel that will be wrong to allocate.
Just whatever
Full forfeit
Conduct - forfeit Round 3 by Con
Arguments to Pro
Economics - Con literally concedes that LGBT people on balance are worse off economically, the only exception being gay men who seem to have less of a disadvantage there.
Bullying, Trauma and mental health - Con again literally concedes that LGBT people are worse off in these ways but blames the bullying as being unrelated to their LGBT status... Really? Con admits extremely statistical discrepancies for the LGBT demographics and then says their being LGBT was not what was to blame because the bullying is to blame... Seems like a real red herring strawman to me.
Pro says this:
"Sure. Thanks for providing this statistic. Therefore on average, one is better off not being LGBT because they are significantly more likely to be bullied. This is an argument in favor of the resolution."
and this:
"Yeah, I agree that bullying plays at least some role in this. I never claimed otherwise so it appears as if you are refuting the air here. You are essentially making my point for me. Trans people are more likely to experience the severe bullying which increases these rates"
That alone handles the entire Kritik red herring that Con brings up. I don't even understand what was brought up. It is as if being more likely to be bullied as a result of being LGBT is somehow taken as an illusion to Con, who blames the bullies for making the biased decision to bully LGBT more... What is the actual argument there? Is it a disadvantage, advantage or neutral? How did Con prove it neutral?
I mean honestly I don't follow Con's case at all, the case tells us that it's not a disadvantage to be LGBT, the only disadvantages are the treatments and drawbacks that come along with it... I wonder what those treatment tendencies and drawbacks are... DISADVANTAGES!
RFD in comments.
Nyxified..
Pro is a f......
Ull forfeiter
VOTE CON
I HAVE NO CHOICE
IT WAS FULL FORFEIT
F00L 4F17
Pro listened to too much metal
Stale af. Yawn
Arguments:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3381/comment-links/41652
Sources:
(in order of what you should read them)
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3381/comment-links/41653
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3381/comment-links/41655
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3381/comment-links/41654
Conduct:
(in order of what you should read them)
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3381/comment-links/41656
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3381/comment-links/41657
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3381/comment-links/41658
What even?
It is affirmative that Con failed to take action, inequality is the result.
Because first round from Pro was not a round of debating, They both mutually FF'd.
Pro's arguments are better because it was proven that suicidal thinking is not exclusive to depression, it is present amongst other states of mental disorder/illness.
ff..............
Fpregone conclusion
badabing badaboom
Ful forfeit
Full forfeit
Debaters agreed to a tie.
concession, also this should not have been winner selection instead of four points, that was a tournament restricted criterion.
this debate literally was a resolution dispute.
One side stuck by the debate's description rewriting the resolution as "Hitler's main motivation for the holocaust was most likely notbecause of his racism" while the other side insisted the resolution really was the debate title "The Holocaust was not about race".
In my eyes, both the respective sides (Pro and Con) won their chosen resolution, so now I need to strongly consider how to go about deciding which the resolution was before breaking down the argument-lines.
Well... It was simple. This is an official Tournament debate that Pro WROTE intentionally with the title that it has. So, if I buy into the idea that Hitler had power-lust as his primary motive, it means absolutely nothing if the Holocaust was about race. Benjamin won because in reality Pro's arguments were a series of concessions arguing a different resolution that conceded that it was about race in part for sure (a large part at that, as Benjamin elaborates on, extensively).
This debate turned out to be a lot more intense than I predicted, it was close, ferocious and a spectacle.
The twisting of sources by Con was clever but Con's actual own sources were .com type stuff and while pewresearch is reliable as it gets, the rest... for a formal debate... It doesn't warrant the source point.
Pro's most crucial error was allowing Con's framework of tasks required to raise and care for children to remain totally uncontested (Con's R1).
In fact, Con was extremely cunning by leaving it as 'and', not separating which was 'care for' and which was 'raise' meaning if Pro failed to contradict or elaborate on it, all Con had to do (which Con did) was prove the 'raise' without the 'care for' part in any specific manner and the 'and' aspect of the resolution is moot.
Pro's case began to solely hone in on the 'care for' aspect of the resolution, which Con noticed and went about working around Pro's line of attack by completely taking hold of the 'raise' aspect. One example of this working so well is that when pro said women like to work with people, men with objects, this became almost identical to Pro's Round 3 but it arbitrarily claimed that women are more emotional and men more rational (firstly you can be high in both and lacking in both but I won't regard that as Con didn't bring it up). Con refutes both at once by pointing out that a rational, clearer thinker is going to both make more sound decisions for the children and teach them more rational ways of going about life.
Pro retorts to this by... lying about Con every single Round, which is why I docked the conduct mark. It's one thing to flex and paint a biased image but we are talking constant gaslighting and lying about what Con has said or done. Pro said Con has dropped points, which while Con didn't directly rebuke the rationality point, it was reflected against Pro and Con certainly made points that were relevant to the resolution, Pro is knowingly lying when saying things like as follows:
"CON makes baseless points, with no substantiative meaning
CON has made no claim relevant to the resolution. "
after an OPENING ROUND by Con that actually was not involving rebuttal to be fairer to Pro as it was concise and left Pro with more to input in both bolstering Pro's own case and rebuking Con's.
Then, when Con takes it on board, (every single criticism Pro gave to Con, literally every single one was taken on board and made up for in Round 2 by Con), Pro then snarkily talks with the following tone for the remainder of the debate:
"CON made a series of points and "refutations," and most of them are strawmen or easily refutable points.
Unfortunately, I dont think any of them work. I will tear through them "
"This is simply CON pointing out the obvious."
"I'll let the voters observe how ridiculous this claim may be. "
"I commend CON for attempting to refute my arguments, but CON has obviously failed to do so. "
There's a fine line in debating between cocky and confident and Pro really pushes over a line that I am comfortable with.
In fact this goes beyond conduct, it is fallacious logic and is precisely what made me want to vote Con all the more.
Con literally took each point Pro criticised in round 2 on board and in Round 3, Pro is still shitting on Con making it out like Con isn't trying and is failing to address things and back things up.
The ENTIRE A-to-G point by point listing of what is involved in raising and caring for children provided by Con is simply waved away by Pro with the following statement:
"CON seems to be arguing whether men or women are better suited to raise children regarding things like "financial resources and patriarchal cultures," which has nothing to do with whether they are psychologically better suited, a mistake on his part. Having said this, the voters can almost discard CON's entire round 1 case. "
but never once explains why we should discard them, when in fact Con was the only participant in the debate to give proper framework for voters to ascertain what raising and caring for entails (Pro presumed we'd know being more empathic vs systematic/rational was somehow an important factor).
Strike first
Strike hard
No mercy
Cobra kai
Technical FF
Pro actually won the debate lol... However, FF rule supercedes any logic.
FF .
If you do more of this wintrading stuff, I will report to the mods because I got legitimate debates where I defeated Type1 on an alt removed due to alleged wintrading.
Full Forfeit
FF.....................
Conduct: Forfeited R1 and also that in the final Round, to me, Pro seemed intentionally lazy and dismissive of Con. Since the R1 was forfeited, I don't need to really specify the R3 tone as being worthy of conduct loss.
Sources: Only Con used sources, Pro really didn't use any.
Arguments: Pro concedes that morality and 'good' are subjective and intangible in his R2 round of debating. He not only concedes this, he explicitly pushes forth the following:
"I've become convinced that goodness doesn't even exist. What is goodness? It is simply whatever someone's nature makes them want to pursue."
These ideas contradict each other, I understand what he means by the second idea, however he should never ever have mentioned the part before if he was pushing that one's ability to determine things is 'goodness' when he just said it doesn't even exist, according to him.
In fact nothing that follows or precedes it specifically justifies why free will is the 'ultimate good' and Pro forgets that Con's primary case is that free will isn't even real, if something doesn't exist how can it then exist as an ultimate good?
Con wins the debate by default due to Pro totally failing to address this issue and furthermore because in the final Round, Pro builds his case to conclude that to him, free will is needed for happiness. However, happiness and goodness are not the same term and if anything, Pro's case is one of free will being a catalyst for good, not itself being ultimate good.
Neither side successfully defined 'better' in this entire debate nor properly connected their case back to said qualitative measure. This means the debate is actually tied but neither side wants that so I'll look further.
Just to be clear, I am 100% serious when I say that this debate can be considered a semantics-based tie due to that. Not even the description of the debate properly explored what classifies one thing as better than another or not.
Con's case is basically an extremely defensive Kritik repeated over and over. The idea in Con's case is that he will concede that women lead more cooperatively and then deny that this is better.
Pro's case is that women lead more cooperatively and result in less wars but the biggest issue is that his case transforms into one about primitive humans being superior to modern civlisations in their leadership style.
One thing to consider, just as a reader without noticing Con's rebuttals, is that primitive humans were brutally masculine and aggressive in how they were led, compared to now.
What happens though, is that Pro doesn't properly tackle what Con throws at him. For starters, Pro never quite addresses the idea that Con presents regarding the matter of men and women not needing to be an either/or thing.
What Pro could have done is accuse Con of semantics abuse, pointing out that some in the leadership could still be men, it's a question of if it was mainly women (or even only women) would it be better, not if this was the absolute best.
Currently, the world has a lot of male adults but just as Con later points out, to say women should lead instead because there'll be less wars could be considered akin to saying sea slugs leading will result in less wars.
Pro does point out that unlike women, sea slugs won't communicate properly with humans however the overall gist of Con's case is that Pro's singular approach (the less wars angle) can't simply be the way we determine that if all leaders were women, the world will be better off.
Both sides truly failed to define or link to what 'better' is, I note that Con actually didn't prove what's truly better about the world led by men nor a mix but Pro's case takes too many strange twists and turns to be deemed valid. Whatever Con throws at Pro, Pro just tries to avoid, instead of pushing further on why the resolution is true he keeps focusing on why the reason it's wrong isn't too much of a reason.
west side laid saba to rest
no problem........
slamdunk..........
In this debate, both sides failed entirely to understand what the debate was but because the pro-choice side needs to better grasp the debate, the pro-life side won and here is why:
Pro-life side says that firstly, a foetus is a human and that therefore personhood applies to a human (in Round 2 this is explicitly stated, in Round 1 implicitly)
Pro-choice side fails to realise he has to separate being human from being a person (also advocating for euthanasia here is a strong move but I understand that Con wanted to avoid having to fight a war on two fronts, though it is inevitable). Con never once does this, instead Con goes in the other direction, he actually abolishes all basis for animal rights in order to justify the slaughter of a human foetus... It's a very odd move because while it's true we as a society have huge neglect to the welfare of farm animals, it isn't true that this is necessarily morally correct.
I am also incredibly confused with what Con's point was. With a chicken, the justification is the meat... That's not lack of justification. In contrast, if you justify killing a human as cannibalistic, it is that we deem that justification insufficient vs what good the being does and can experience that is at play. This 'equating and scaling' system of morality is what Con desperately needed to bring into the debate and simply does not succeed in doing so.
Con keeps pushing for absolutism, comparing a human foetus to a chicken for instance but a much better absolutist approach from the pro-choice side would instead be equating a foetus to a fertilised chicken egg what we happened to cook and eat before it hatched (eggs from hens with a cockerel in the vicinity are always potentially fertilised and actually the morally superior organic form of egg is more, not less, likely to have had this occur).
Pro keeps sticking to absolutism, not realising that his syllogism completely lacks any exploration of morality. The way Pro wins the debate, in my eyes, is the following:
This rebuttal...
1. An infant
1.1 is able to have a different physical location than their mother
1.2 is able to learn and develop a unique personality.
2. A fetus
2.1 is directly infringing on the womens body.
3. The process of pregnancy is painful.
1.1 was covered in my initial nonconsequential argument.Just as how moving from the garage to the bedroom does not affect one's moral worth, moving from inside the womb into the delivery room shouldn’t either.
1.2 is not satisfactory, as people born with extreme brain damage cannot learn or develop any personality.
2.1 is also unsatisfactory, as the right to life trumps the right to desire.
3. is also unsatisfactory as ones pain does not allow for them to vent it onto others. If I were in pain, would I be morally allowed to kill my child? "
It excellently proves that Con's stance is scarily psychopathic in fact and essentially can be stretched to be justifying killing a newborn baby. Con's reply to this inthe LAST ROUND (which Pro can't reply to)
is this:
"Not every human has moral value because some have, that would be a fallacy of composition"
What on earth does that mean or imply? Is Con saying humans have no moral value at all, potentially?
Con's stance is that all morality is negated by default but I have never and will never support this kind of Kritik. You can't take a debate on abortion being immoral or not and say it's not immoral because nothing is immoral. That kind of kritik is childish and even if morality is purely subjective, it follows that subjectively it should and would disgust any non-psychopath that we can simply kill humans as we please if there isn't enough resistance to that killing.
Pro wins but could have presented a much stronger case, such as exploring the 'why' of foetuses mattering and the 'when' of personhood during conception and discussing euthanasia and why Pro may see that as immoral.
corncobbed
ff .
nagasaki motherfucker
FF .
3/4 rounds forfeited by pro