I initially phrased it that way to avoid having to address some extremely convoluted scenario I had never heard of, but I see your point. Under BoP, I listed specific exceptions. Let me know if there's anything else.
By joining Mall's debate, you implicitly agreed to the rules of the debate, which by default include the rules of the site. Hence, plagiarism restrictions apply. You can use ChatGPT to get information, but if we can still pick out words and phrases generated by AI, it's not really "your" argument.
If you'd created the debate and put a disclaimer in the description allowing for AI, it would be a different story. But as it stands, using AI-generated content isn't fair to Mall.
Since there seems to be confirmation of cheating, is it possible to have my vote removed? I wouldn't want to vote against the side that debated honestly.
Is it just me, or do Con's responses sound a lot like ChatGPT? Every AI detector I plug it into says it was generated by a human, making me think it might have been AI-generated and then slightly edited afterwards. The only evidence I have is instinct from reading AI text, but there are a lot of phrases here that sound suspiciously like AI. Some parts don't, so I think those bits were changed to avoid detection. I don't think it's 100% ChatGPT, but I think significant portions are.
Sound like ChatGPT:
"It is important to recognize that..."
"You have effectively clarified your intentions and objectives behind the debate title, providing me with a better understanding of..."
"offering different insights and perspectives..."
"it is important to note that..."
"This concludes my argument and brings our debate to a close." (in R2, which wasn't the last round, but ChatGPT wouldn't know that.)
There's formatting, but it's mostly only the kind that could be copied from ChatGPT. Nothing is bold or underlined, but ChatGPT formats with colons after a section heading. Con's R2 goes randomly from lines in the bible to non-topical expressions like "love is a battlefield", making me think that Con may have copied and edited erroneous results from ChatGPT without realizing that they didn't address the prompt. There's a lot of tangents there that seem indicative of AI as well. With no proof of foul pay, this is a win for Con, but I could see this becoming an issue in the future. I won't say I have proof, because I don't (and I'm not suggesting anything should be done without hard evidence), but maybe someone else who's used AI a lot can tell me if they agree.
Ah, that's understandable. Good to admit your bias; that's a kind of humility I ought to exhibit more of.
That said, if the topic interests you, you may enjoy reading.
I get the point on freedom, but I've got reservations about letting individuals make permanent decisions that they're likely to regret later. That said, I think you did well here.
It's hard to weigh sources like that if you reference them but don't quote or summarize them. It would be a bit like Con saying "The Quran has contradictions, read this book by Christopher Hitchens." I can only really score arguments made by each side, not those simply referenced.
You came very close to winning, in my opinion. The issue I had was that you claimed "awwala almumineena" shouldn't be interpreted literally, but you didn't go much further than that. If it means "first of the believers," then that would seem to imply "first ever." If it doesn't mean that, then you needed to provide more evidence about how the phrase is used in Arabic. A source or even a dictionary definition would have helped.
I initially phrased it that way to avoid having to address some extremely convoluted scenario I had never heard of, but I see your point. Under BoP, I listed specific exceptions. Let me know if there's anything else.
"Infinite cases are possible"
Hence, the obvious conclusion is that the resolution refers to the majority of abortions that are occurring in the United States.
The description gives Pro a lot more leeway than that.
I promised Austin a debate, but maybe after that.
Thanks to you as well! Thought you did a good job.
I guess this one will be here a while.
Thanks for voting!
If you don't mind me asking, what is TWS1405 a reference to? I've always wondered.
Sounds good
Does this work for you?
This was a treat to read live. I've got thoughts on this, but I won't give my opinion until voting is over.
Oh, that's what that was. I thought your vote got removed for some reason lol. I was surprised because it seemed pretty detailed.
Did you switch Pro and Con in the first half of your RFD? I got confused near the end.
By joining Mall's debate, you implicitly agreed to the rules of the debate, which by default include the rules of the site. Hence, plagiarism restrictions apply. You can use ChatGPT to get information, but if we can still pick out words and phrases generated by AI, it's not really "your" argument.
If you'd created the debate and put a disclaimer in the description allowing for AI, it would be a different story. But as it stands, using AI-generated content isn't fair to Mall.
Since there seems to be confirmation of cheating, is it possible to have my vote removed? I wouldn't want to vote against the side that debated honestly.
Is it just me, or do Con's responses sound a lot like ChatGPT? Every AI detector I plug it into says it was generated by a human, making me think it might have been AI-generated and then slightly edited afterwards. The only evidence I have is instinct from reading AI text, but there are a lot of phrases here that sound suspiciously like AI. Some parts don't, so I think those bits were changed to avoid detection. I don't think it's 100% ChatGPT, but I think significant portions are.
Sound like ChatGPT:
"It is important to recognize that..."
"You have effectively clarified your intentions and objectives behind the debate title, providing me with a better understanding of..."
"offering different insights and perspectives..."
"it is important to note that..."
"This concludes my argument and brings our debate to a close." (in R2, which wasn't the last round, but ChatGPT wouldn't know that.)
There's formatting, but it's mostly only the kind that could be copied from ChatGPT. Nothing is bold or underlined, but ChatGPT formats with colons after a section heading. Con's R2 goes randomly from lines in the bible to non-topical expressions like "love is a battlefield", making me think that Con may have copied and edited erroneous results from ChatGPT without realizing that they didn't address the prompt. There's a lot of tangents there that seem indicative of AI as well. With no proof of foul pay, this is a win for Con, but I could see this becoming an issue in the future. I won't say I have proof, because I don't (and I'm not suggesting anything should be done without hard evidence), but maybe someone else who's used AI a lot can tell me if they agree.
That's quick.
Well that's just me being ignorant of pop culture.
Is it a boarding school, or is there a reason you can't make arguments from home?
I kind of assumed from your profile picture
Yeah, I don't like how poorly my comment aged. Hope you find a workaround, though.
You may like voting on this one.
Please vote!
From the description I think it's the former, though they should probably have titled the debate something different.
Thanks for voting!
I wouldn't be too sure about that. It's already been established that Best.Korea is God and that anyone who disagrees with him is wrong.
Source: Best.Korea
Thanks for the vote!
If you're looking for judges, rayhan16, Vici, and Yassine are probably the most active Muslim users.
"This House Believes That"
To some extent, it's superfluous, but it's often used in formal debates.
https://www.asf.edu.mx/learning/events/asomex-debate-tournament/debating
Is this about the annual divorce rate or the percentage of marriages that end in divorce? Because those are two very different numbers.
I got voting credits so I can keep this pinned awhile until someone accepts.
Thanks for voting!
Ah, that's understandable. Good to admit your bias; that's a kind of humility I ought to exhibit more of.
That said, if the topic interests you, you may enjoy reading.
I would change "explained" to "plausibly rationalized." Otherwise, interpretations of the resolution are going to be extremely subjective.
This one looks like it's up your alley.
You may be interested in voting on this one.
Did Quentin Tarantino write this resolution?
The March of History continues...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwqnRYPcrl0&ab_channel=AIERLibrary
I get the point on freedom, but I've got reservations about letting individuals make permanent decisions that they're likely to regret later. That said, I think you did well here.
Thanks!
Please vote if you have time!
Ok, that makes more sense.
"Moral obligations only work in practice."
Wait, did you mean to say in theory?
It's hard to weigh sources like that if you reference them but don't quote or summarize them. It would be a bit like Con saying "The Quran has contradictions, read this book by Christopher Hitchens." I can only really score arguments made by each side, not those simply referenced.
You came very close to winning, in my opinion. The issue I had was that you claimed "awwala almumineena" shouldn't be interpreted literally, but you didn't go much further than that. If it means "first of the believers," then that would seem to imply "first ever." If it doesn't mean that, then you needed to provide more evidence about how the phrase is used in Arabic. A source or even a dictionary definition would have helped.
Well, you should vote based solely on the arguments in the debate, not just your own opinion.
I won't say too much before voting begins, but it's a very solid opening.
I like the space theme though. Pretty dope.
Idk if it's actually that big a deal, I just thought it could kind of be interpreted both ways.
Ooh, this will be a good one. Intelligence doesn't go down without a fight.