Total votes: 123
Concession.
Forfeit, and Con argued for Pro's position.
Forfeit by Pro.
Pro conceded and forfeited.
Conduct to Pro because of Con's forfeit.
Con pointed out that Pro admitted that the wage gap was real. While Pro provided a variety of explanations for the wage gap, the debate resolution was not "The wage gap is not a result of sexism," but rather "The wage gap is not real." Pro's arguments attacked a particular explanation for WHY the wage gap exists, but he admitted THAT it exists. Con noticed this and argued accordingly. Thus, he wins arguments.
I don't think that the lack of sources had any impact on the debate because Pro's arguments were irrelevant to the resolution anyway, so I won't award any source points.
Con correctly pointed out that Pro had the BOP to show that he was "for the most disagreeable." Pro never provided any evidence to support that, so Con wins.
Full forfeit.
Concession. Apparently, GPT-3 is no Deep Blue.
Full forfeit.
Pro wins for two reasons. Firstly, Con forfeited half the debate. Secondly, Con admitted that they used Kritiks, which violated the rules in the description. Pro didn't bother responding to Con's argument about Nazis, but that argument alone does not tip the debate to Con. Thus, points to Pro.
Full forfeit from Con. Pro posted one round with arguments, so he wins arguments and conduct.
Full forfeit on Con's part. Pro forfeited all but one round, so his conduct is less bad than Con's.
An odd debate. More of a lazy conversation. The only real argument I saw was Pro arguing that Mall was out to win, which would not help RM gain rating from Mall. Mall agreed that he was out to defeat RM, if by defeat Pro meant "prove wrong." Con didn't really make any arguments and agreed with the only argument Pro made, so arguments to Pro.
Interesting to read. Not much of a debate, but an interesting conversation.
Full forfeit.
When I saw this debate, I was kind of expecting to see that I had already voted on it and had forgotten about it. Apparently not.
Full forfeit.
Forfeit............
BOP: This was not discussed in the debate. However, since Pro is making the claim, I will regard him as having the main BOP.
Arguments: Pro argues that, becuase we are all stuck in a currency system, we are all bound to it, and are thus not financially free. Furthermore, he argues that even people who can pay their bills are still obliged to pay them.
Con counters that the definition of financial freedom is "having enough savings, financial investments, and cash on hand to afford the kind of life we desire for ourselves and our families." Thus, none of Pro's arguments apply to financial freedom.
Pro counters that we are still not free from finances and bills. He states, "We're not arguing definitions." This is quite wrong, as definitions make a huge difference in this debate.
Con replies that financial freedom is to have bills paid off with money to spare. Thus, although we are not free from paying bills, we can still have freedom with the money we have left.
Pro's counter boils down to this statement: "Correct, within the prison walls."
The rest of the debate is mostly reiteration.
This debate comes down to definitions. If Pro is correct that financial freedom means freedom from finances, he wins. If Con is correct that finanical freedom refers to having money left over after paying bills, thereby granting people a measure of freedom, then he wins.
Pro argues a lot about how we aren't free from the financial system. However, he doesn't do much to argue that that is what the phrase "financial freedom" refers to. In common usage, it does not refer to freedom from the finances. Pro also fails to present any sources to back his preferred definion. On the other hand, Con provides a source to back up his definition.
Overall, I thought Con's approach to this debate was rather lazy, given how little he posted. However, I just don't think that Pro met his burden of proof. Arguing that a common phrase should mean something other than what it normally means requires much more than what he provides. Therefore, I am giving the win to Con.
I'm not quite sure what the resolution means. Still, Con points to the existence of auroville - whatever that is - and says that it is communist. Pro counters that auroville isn't dictatorial and therefore not communist. Con replies that communism doesn't require a dictatorship. I've got no idea what auroville is, but Pro's only objection to it being communist was that it wasn't a dictatorship. Con countered that. Thus, Con seems to have found communism, so I'll give arguments to him.
Still no idea what was going on here.
Pro forfeited, leaving Con's arguments unaddressed.
irate
round
lords
words
Concession.
Someone didn't do their homework.
RFD in comments.
Concession.
Full Forfeit.
Full Forfeit.
Full Forfeit. Farewell, RationalMadman.
Con showed that white power is connected with white supremacy. Pro argued that wasn't the definition he was using, but didn't provide any reasons to prefer his definition, whereas Con sourced his definition. Arguments to Con.
RM was good, but Danielle killed it, especially with that last round.
Con won with 6 points to Pro's 4.
Concession.
Con forfeited twice and Pro plagiarized half of his R2. I won't award conduct points to either side. Pro does make some arguments that, as best as I can tell, were not plagiarized. Con made no response to any arguments, so arguments to Pro.
I'm not sure if that last round was a concession or not, but it left Con's arguments unrefuted. Pro's R2 didn't accomplish much either, as it simply objected that Con was using science rather than philosophy. Con answered the philosophical objections in R2, and Pro responded with "Nicely done." Arguments to Con.
Concession.
Concession.
Con bites the figurative bullet and argues that it is good to make food out of aborted babies. He argues that, since they are already dead, it is pointless to let them go to waste. He claims that they can be made into nutritious food.
Pro argues that eating aborted babies is cannibalism and is morally wrong. Since the BoP is on him to show that it is morally wrong, this isn't convincing. He does argue that there have been negative affects from cannibalism, indicating that it is morally wrong. He says we should be respectful and bury the baby, not eat it. He compares Con's argument that they are already dead, so it's okay to eat them, to raping someone while they are asleep. He also claims that it isn't good because it isn't safe.
This debate does have the problem that neither side really clarify what "good" means in this context. Neither specify moral good, so Pro's argument about eating babies being unsafe does seem applicable. Furthermore, Con dropped it, so it does stand. A more significant problem here is that neither side provides any moral framework for determining whether it's right or wrong. Con seems to be proposing that the contribution to society from eating supposedly nutritious babies is some sort of good. That's not great, but it's more than what Pro provides. Pro's moral arguments are vague. He says that we should be respectful and that it's morally wrong to eat humans. However, he just takes the moral wrongness of eating babies as a given. While that would be fine in real life, and most people would agree, this is a debate, and such contentions require supporting evidence. The only thing that Pro provides as supporting evidence is that we have souls, so it's wrong. I don't see how that logic follows. What difference does having a soul make in this case? Pro doesn't explain.
To try to straighten out this mess, I'll try to summarize. Con argues that it is good to make food out of aborted babies because it contributes nutritious food to society. Pro never has a good counter to this. On the other hand, Pro argues that it's unsafe, and Con drops this. The resolution here is a general statement that it is wrong to make food out of aborted babies. Con's argument that it is a contribution to society does apply generally. Pro's argument that it is unsafe is not as generalizable. While it may be unsafe in the situations Con mentions, he doesn't show that it's always unsafe, although he does provide arguments that it is unsafe in several different contexts. I'll give Con the edge here because his argument can apply to all cases, whereas Pro's argument only applies to many cases.
Overall, this debate was a mess, and honestly rather gross. It would have been nice to see some definitions and some framework from both sides to show how to weigh the arguments. Neither side engaged much with the meat of the other's arguments. Pro's argument was rather unclear and resembled a gish gallop at times, whereas Con dropped Pro's whole argument. As mentioned above, Con's argument is a little better, so I'll give him the points.
Concession. I think that was a mistake. Con had forfeited two rounds, so Pro could have won this.
Full Forfeit.
Concession.
Pro humorously demonstrates why it's necessary to write a clear debate resolution. He proves that he got another chance, he proves that Con is on trial, and he states that his issue with Con is that he wants him to have an issue with him and put him on trial. Pro successfully demonstrates each part of the resolution, and Con has no answer for it.
Pro forfeits R2 and essentially forfeits R3, leaving Con's arguments unaddressed.
Verily, twas a virtu'us surr'nder.
Concession.
Pro said the topic was not debatable, prompting Con to explain how it could be debated. Pro dropped all of Con's arguments. This was a pretty clearly debatable topic. Pro failed to debate it and dropped Con's arguments that it was debatable. Arguments to Con.
There were no issues with S&G or conduct. I don't think the sources used in the debate really made much difference.
Pro argues that love meters would enable people to get out of unloving relationships and avoid gold diggers. Con argues that honesty or knowing someone is cheating isn't always beneficial, which Pro drops. Con argues that a love meter could be a privacy violation, which Pro agrees to, saying that a person could choose not to let the other person see their love meter. Con also argues that love isn't the only thing that matters in marriage, and Pro agrees and says that it doesn't matter if the couple is fine with low love numbers. Con also argues that open relationships can be healthy, which Pro drops.
Pro restates his argument about how a love meter could get people out of loving relationship. He also shoots himself in the foot by saying, "If you were so toxic you HAD to have a number validate the love, then perhaps you do not deserve this relation."
I could go on to Con's closing arguments, but it wouldn't make a difference. Pro drops, agrees to, or sidesteps all of Con's objections. His argument about how a love meter could be useful in some circumstances still stands, but he let Con poke a bunch of holes in it. Arguments to Con.
Con used some sources to bolster his claims, and Pro dropped them. Pro didn't use any sources, although I'm not sure he needed to. Even so, Con's unaddressed sources win him the points.
There were no issues with S&G that I saw.
Con forfeited one of the three rounds, so conduct to Pro.
Con opens his case by arguing that it would be more profitable to use an alien egg for research than it would be to kill it. Furthermore, killing the egg could cause the aliens to seek revenge. Finally, he argues that we should not kill it because life is valuable, and letting it live is the kind thing to do.
Pro begins with a powerful counter. Turning the alien egg into a guinea pig to be poked and prodded is not a moral thing to do. The alien might also have the power to destroy us, so destroying it would be safer. He also argues that the aliens who left the egg would likely be either too clumsy to be a threat, too neglectful to care, or so dangerous that destroying the egg would be a deterrent.
Con rather sensibly points out that the alien being powerful enough to destroy us is highly speculative. Researching on the egg could help determine whether that would be a problem. He also points out that, if the alien has such abilities, destroying it might also be dangerous. He also claims that we would learn more from the alien civilization if we are peaceful in that we didn't destroy the egg.
Pro reiterates his argument that, if kept alive and used for research, the alien would almost certainly be abused. He also extends his point about the aliens being to clumsy or so dangerous that destroying the egg would act as deterrent.
I'm surprised that Con didn't stress the moral implications of killing an apparently innocent alien egg. He touched on it briefly, but he mainly neglected it in favor of research. Pro makes a good point that the research could very easily be abusive. Con's argument that killing the egg would anger the aliens is certainly valid. But as Pro points out, the aliens would likely be either unthreatening or so threatening that destroying the egg would act as a needed deterrent. Overall, Con just didn't do a good job addressing Pro's points. Arguments to Pro.
Pro forfeited, so his conduct was worse. However, I think the arguments outweigh that, so I'll vote Pro.
Full forfeit.