SirAnonymous

Concession.

English RFD in comments.

Firstly, congratulations to both debaters for the first DART debate in French. While it is a pity that one round was forfeited, making it lesser than it could have been, it is nevertheless an important milestone.
Tout d'abord, félicitations aux deux débatteurs pour le premier débat DART en français. S'il est regrettable qu'un tour ait été perdu, ce qui le rend moins important qu'il ne pouvait l'être, il s'agit néanmoins d'un jalon important.

Pro ouvre le débat avec un simple syllogisme: un enfant à naître est une vie humaine, donc c'est un meurtre de le tuer. Il soutient cela avec l'exemple des fœtus du troisième trimestre, qui sont, selon Pro, des bébés. Il soutient que, s'il s'agit de vies humaines, ce serait une pente glissante de prétendre que les fœtus aux premiers stades de développement ne sont pas vivants. Con attaque cela avec des statistiques montrant le faible taux de viabilité des nourrissons du premier trimestre. Pro rétorque que la viabilité est un argument basé sur la technologie. À l'avenir, une technologie pourrait être développée qui pourrait rendre les fœtus du premier trimestre viables, ruinant ainsi l'argument selon lequel la vie est déterminée par la viabilité. C'est aussi sa réfutation de l'objection selon laquelle les fœtus ne sont pas des vies car ils dépendent de la mère. Pro attaque également de manière préventive l'objection selon laquelle la mère n'a pas consenti à la conception du fœtus, elle n'a donc aucune responsabilité de le maintenir en vie. Il soutient que le consentement n'est pas pertinent car la responsabilité est intrinsèque à la maternité. Contre le fait que l'avortement n'est qu'une rupture du lien biologique entre la mère et le fœtus. Laisser quelqu'un mourir, dit Con, n'est pas équivalent à un meurtre. Pro répond que l'avortement mène presque inévitablement à la mort du fœtus, donc la première objection de Con échoue. De plus, l'intention est généralement de faire en sorte que le fœtus n'existe plus ou de le tuer activement.
Con attaque également l'affirmation de Pro selon laquelle l'avortement entraîne la mort. Il cite une définition de la mort et note que la fin d'un fœtus ne correspond pas à la définition de la mort parce que le fœtus ne perd pas conscience. Pro réfute cela avec un argumentum ad absurdum. Si la logique de Con était valide, la mort d'un patient dans le coma ne serait pas non plus la mort.
Pro soutient également que l'avortement devrait être illégal parce que les femmes peuvent y subir des pressions. Con réfute cela efficacement en soulignant que les gens sont constamment sous pression, ce n'est donc pas une justification pour rendre quelque chose d'illégal.
Con attaque la position de Pro en soulignant que la plupart ou tous les pays qui ont légalisé l'avortement l'ont fait pour des raisons constitutionnelles. Autrement dit, ces gouvernements ont décidé qu'ils n'étaient pas autorisés à l'interdire. Pro fait remarquer qu'il ne s'agit là que d'une objection pratique, qui n'a aucun impact sur la question morale de savoir si elle doit ou non être rendue illégale.
Les tentatives pro de faire valoir que le consentement à un avortement n'est parfois pas possible. Contre cela efficacement en disant qu'il s'agit d'une question distincte car ce serait une forme d'extorsion et elle-même une violation de l'autonomie corporelle des femmes.

Dans l'ensemble, je pense que les deux arguments étaient quelque peu fragiles et reposaient trop sur une opinion personnelle et utilisaient trop de déclarations non sourcées présentées comme des faits. Cependant, les deux parties en sont coupables. Les deux parties ont soulevé des points tels que les questions constitutionnelles et la manipulation des femmes qui semblaient largement étrangers. Je pense que Pro a fait un meilleur travail en faisant valoir que les enfants à naître sont vivants et leur avortement est un meurtre que Con a fait valoir le contraire. Arguments à Pro.

Ni l'un ni l'autre n'avait de mauvaises sources, mais ils n'ont pas non plus utilisé autant de sources pour sauvegarder leurs affirmations que je le voudrais. Les sources sont liées. Conduite et S&G se penchent tous deux vers Pro en raison de la présentation R1 difficile à lire et de Con, mais aucun d'eux n'est suffisamment flagrant pour attribuer des points.

Pro forfeited over half his rounds.

Pro forfeited 2/3 of the rounds.

Pro forfeited over half the rounds.

Full Forfeit.

Full forfeit.

Full forfeit.

Concession.

Pro forfeited two rounds, so he loses conduct. Also, he would have the burden of proof in this debate, and he failed to present any arguments. This is an easy win for Con.

Before I begin, I would like to thank the participants for this interesting and very well argued debate. This debate is between two Top 15 DART debaters, and they have proven their proficiency. It was a pleasure to read.

Both debaters used reputable sources. They exercised good conduct and had few errors with spelling and grammar.

Naturally, the crux of this debate was the definition of a scientist and whether physicians meet that definition. In R1, they agreed that scientists have the following characteristics:
Scientists...
1. Make an observation
2. Ask a question
3. Form a hypothesis
4. Conduct an experiment
5. Reject or Accept hypothesis
This is the scientific method.
Pro contends that physicians make observations on their patients' bodies, ask questions regarding the malady, form a hypothesis of what the malady is, conduct an experiment such as a scan to test that hypothesis, then reject or accept the hypothesis based on the results of the test. Thus, physicians follow the scientific method and are therefore scientists. He also cites three definitions of a scientist from different dictionaries to demonstrate that, in common English, physicians are scientists.
Con replies by arguing that diagnoses and scans do not qualify as hypotheses and experiments because they are known procedures and do not result in new information. In his words,
"Scientists ask Questions and make Hypothesis (aka a possible explanation for an unknown phenomena), in order to Gain new and deeper knowledge
Doctors use this knowledge in order to provide optimal treatment to sick people. They do not, in 95%+ cases, seek new knowledge through their primary work.
If, as a doctor should, do seek knowledge. it is newly discovered (past tense) knowledge that was discovered by scientists... as that is their job description."
Further, he argues that dictionaries are not authorities and cites definitions of a physician and a scientist from organizations of the two professions.
Pro counters that this is moving the goal posts and constitutes a No True Scotsman. He argues that diagnoses do not cease to be hypotheses merely because they are educated guesses and that known procedures do not cease to be experiments merely because they are known. He cites three different dictionaries to back up his claim. Also, he maintains that the fact that dictionaries aren't authorities doesn't invalidate his point that physicians are scientists using English definitions.
Con repeats his argument that diagnoses and medical tests are not hypothesis and experiments because they are not novel research. Further, he asserts that dictionaries are not authorities and that the definitions he provided from organizations of physicians and scientists are a better standard. Also, he points out that the definition of a scientist as someone who uses the scientific method would classify nearly everyone as a scientist.
Pro replies once again that requiring the research to be novel constitutes moving the goalpost. He argues that whether or not most people are scientists is irrelevant to the question of whether physicians are scientists.

Overall, I thought that Pro established that physicians do use the scientific method, so, by the agreed upon definition, they would be scientists. However, he has no effective response to Con's reductio ad absurdum that such a definition would lead to everyone being classified as a scientist. However, that was the definition Con agreed to at the beginning of the debate. I cannot decide which of these two arguments (establishing that physicians use the scientific method and establishing that such a definition would make everyone a scientist) has more weight. Thus, arguments are tied.

Once again, I would like to thank both participants for this excellent debate. It was a pleasure to read. Both sides were argued excellently.

The burden of proof was on Pro and was clearly outlined in the description. Pro needed to provide a quote proving that Discipulus_Didicit used to support open borders. He failed to do so, and thus did not meet his burden of proof. Arguments go to Con.

Con forfeited a round, so Pro gets conduct.
Judging by the debate description, the BoP seems to be shared, so I will judge the arguments accordingly.
Both participants argued that their own philosophies would lead to personal happiness and the benefit of others. Pro argued that, by definition, hedonism is the pursuit of happiness, so it inevitably leads to happiness. Furthermore, most people are not pleased by harming others, so in their search for pleasure, they will not harm others. Contrarily, Con argued that HBOY (Congrats to the participants for coining the name of this interesting philosophy) would by definition help yourself and others. Con pointed out that hedonism has the problem that some people are pleased by hurting others, thus giving hedonism an inescapable moral problem. As Pro pointed out, however, HBOY has the exact same problem if someone believes that pain helps other. Thus, both philosophies are weakened by this same problem.
Pro also attempted to show a contradiction in HBOY because it is impossible to always help yourself and others. But as Con pointed out, HBOY only says to "try" to help others. If helping yourself and others is not always possible, there is no contradiction because only trying is required.
Overall, the moral problems both philosophies face cancel each other out, so arguments are a tie.

FF FF

Concession

Concession and FF

FF ten chars

Con dropped most of Pro's R1 arguments. He failed to show how the Trinity is a Biblical doctrine. In fact, he hardly presented any arguments. On the other hand, Pro actually took the time to explain how the doctrine of the Trinity was pagan. He showed how pagan emperors influenced the Nicean Council. He argued that the pagan Platonic philosophy was added to the Trinity and that the doctrine developed over time rather than being the beliefs of the earliest Christians. He refuted Con's argument that the Trinity is Biblical by providing a verse hinting at the opposite. I don't think he proved that the Trinity was pagan, Con failed to establish the BoP required. Pro's arguments suggest that the doctrine of the Trinity could have pagan roots. Con failed to refute those arguments. Consequently, arguments go to Pro.
There were no issues with spelling, grammar, or conduct. While Con did try to discredit one of Pro's sources, he didn't provide any reasoning for discrediting it. Thus, sources are a tie.

The voting standard in the debate is "The participant who scores the most points is declared the winner." I will use A to refer to America and C to Canada. I will say they are talking about "their country" for convenience.
Military: Pro says that A's military is more powerful and is used to protect 67 countries. Con protests that the military has killed 200,000 civilians. Pro responds that the numbers are exaggerated.
Pro
Economy: Pro cites statistics showing how A's economy is stronger. Con responds that Americans get less out of their economy and brings up healthcare as an example. However, one example is not sufficient to establish a generalized claim.
Pro
Innovation: Pro cites statistics showing how A is more innovative. Con replies that innovation can lead to job loss. Pro does not have a chance to respond.
Tie
Natural Resources: Pro shows how A has more natural resources than C. Con responds that that doesn't make a country better and can't be changed.
Tie
Tourism: Pro says that A has more tourism than C. Con replies that A is generally agreed to be a poor place for tourism.
Con
Media: Pro points out that A has a larger and better media than C. Con says that isn't necessarily a good thing because the media can promote hate. However, that would be true of both C and A.
Pro
Happiness: Both provide sources saying one country is happier than the other.
Tie
Soft Power: Pro says A has more soft power. Con says Pro provided no evidence. However, Pro did provide a source in R1.
Pro
Agriculture: Pro says that A produces the most Ag products in the world. Con points out that A and C are almost identical in Ag.
Tie
History: Both sides provide examples of how their country's history is good and the other's is not.
Tie
World leaders: Pro says that a temporary leader is bad but doesn't explain why. Con says Trump is bad but doesn't explain why.
Tie
Healthcare: Con states that A healthcare is more expensive and causes 500,000 bankruptcies annually. Pro replies that C actually has more bankruptcies and A has better health outcomes and shorter waiting times. Con says that C has better health outcomes, but drops the bankruptcies and waiting times.
Pro
Museums: Pro says A has more museums. Con says the artifacts in the museums come from conquest. Pro replies that both countries have done that and are returning the artifacts.
Tie
Measurement systems: Con says C uses metric, which is better. Pro drops it.
I think that's all of them. Pro: 5. Con: 1. Tie: 7. Pro wins arguments.
Both sides had good sources, conduct, and S&G.
Excellent debate by both sides.

The only evidence Pro gives for his claims is his personal experiences of being consistently voted against. Con provides alternative explanations that Pro fails to address. Pro also claims that his point is self-evident and the burden of proof is on his opponent. Con points out that it is only evident to Pro. Pro clearly has the burden of proof in this debate, and he fails to even come close to meeting it.

Pro opened with two mathematical equations that contradict each other. Con denied that the second equation was valid because he claimed ...9990 doesn't exist. Con then attempted a play on words to say that 0.999...0 doesn't exist because an infinite number can't end. Pro refuted these claims by pointing out that the existence of 0s at the beginning or end of a number does not prevent there from being an infinite number of 9s before the end or after the beginning.
Overall, neither side was able to prove their case. Pro relied on contradictory equations and Con stuck to attempts to refute Pro's claims.
The only source was Pro citing himself. Both sides had good conduct and S&G.

This debate was very close.
Sources: Both referenced anything from WikiPedia to academic sources.
Conduct: No issues on either side.
S&G: Neither sides had issues with these.
Arguments: Both sides acknowledged that the New world was at a disadvantage compared to the Old World in regards to geography and trade. Pro attempted to argue that the religions in the New World would have led to a disadvantage, but failed to address the similarities between the Old and New World religions that Con pointed out. Concerning society, Pro was able to point out the advantages held by the Old world, and Con's counterexamples were inapplicable because they all existed after contact between the New and Old worlds was made.
The main point of this debate was the burden of proof. The premise was that the New World "may" have been in "the past." Pro did provide enough evidence to demonstrate that possibility. However, Con challenged that premise by characterizing Pro's premise as "IF the NW NEVER CONTACTED the OW IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, or FORM, THEN THEIR CIVILIZATION WOULD LIKELY NEVER CHANGE." Pro completely failed to respond to that challenge. As such, Pro allowed Con to frame the debate in a way that gave Pro a much higher burden of proof. Rather than having to prove the possibility that the New World "may" have remained in "the past," (which does not imply that it would never change) he allowed Con to dictate that he had to prove the the New World "likely would have", not just "may," "never changed," not just "living in the past." Pro failed to meet that burden and failed to challenge Con's imposition thereof. Thus, arguments lean toward Con.

ff