Total votes: 6
Troll debate so my vote goes to Con because maybelotus was clearly not thinking straight in coming onto DART just to bitch about others being on this website having debates and/or discussions.
Con, whether true or not, had a good comeback. So, he is winner winner chicken dinner!!!
Con was incredibly thorough in each and every response, thereby providing far more convincing arguments.
Con provided countless reliable sources compared to the very few that Pro provided in R1.
Con provided arguments that were far more legible (i.e., grammar, context, syntax, consistency, clarity, etc.) than Pro did.
Con provided better conduct, as Pro displayed/demonstrated arrogance more than once throughout the debate.
R1:
Pro claims any decision based on a background check can ONLY be discrimination, not accounting for electability based on many other facts IN ADDITION to the background check.
Claims society doesn't help the convicted, ignores the fact that society doesn't help anyone, directly, they help all indirectly via programs set up to provide assistance. It's up to parolees and the convicted who completed their sentence fully to utilize those programs, it's not society's responsibility to just seek them out and hand everything to them on a silver platter.
Pro either ignores or is ignorant of the fact that those charged with certain crimes can have their records expunged, if they qualify.
Pro demonstrates a level of ignorance when it comes to recidivism rates of formerly incarcerated individuals, just citing 1 or 2 sources and letting them do all the explanation without giving any context to said sources as they directly relate to their argument(s) given.
Pro ignores the risk to benefit ratio when it comes to housing and/or employment liabilities.
Con provided quotes from his sources thereby giving context to said sources as they relate to their argument. Explained candidate consent. Noted laws on negligent hiring and the liability assumed if poor hiring practices are used. Provided sources and a recent example to illustrate their point(s).
R2:
Pro provided very little in rebuttal, more like an afterthought than anything else. No cited sources. Just subjective opinion.
Demonstrated/displayed arrogance asserting Con needs to revise his argument.
Pro claimed Con didn't say anything about his argument of employer discrimination, thereby shifting the BoP. Same for Pro's argument of his claimed harm to the convicted on getting housing, an argument Pro needs to prove, not Con. Again, shifting the BoP.
Pro arrogant claims background checks "directly" affect the convicted without acknowledging a multitude of other factors that go into the overall decision making process.
Con acknowledges there are many issues at play in the decision making process, Pro does not.
Notes the benefit vs cost ration of liability when making poor decisions without all the facts made available to them (ie, background checks being an important tool to that end).
Provides numerous citations to substantiate their position, whereas Pro hasn't provided any this round (or subsequent rounds for that matter).
R3:
Pro again gives NO citations to substantiate their subjective retort.
Asserts Con is "speculating" with the DUII example, but he himself speculated himself in R1.
Claims Con must prove convicted would recidivate on the job or in housing, again, shifting the BoP.
Pro states he did not argue whether employment was possible or not, but rather that landlords and business owners "actively discriminate" yet has not proven this beyond a reasonable doubt or even by a preponderance of any measure of evidence (ie, cited sources which Pro seriously lacked).
Con discusses risk to benefit ratio, proved numerous sources, proves Pro agreed to job restrictions, which include background checks, obviously.
Con demonstrated that Pro basically conceded to the debate topic with their own statements used against him.
R4:
Pro claims Con misunderstands debate topic (arrogance, yet again). Claims Con hasn't been honest (ad hominem).
Claims to have given "statistical evidence" proving his position and contradicts Con's position.
Con recounts point, intent and purpose of the debate topic. Gives yet another thorough and well cited rebuttal. Proves Pro is the one who misunderstood their own debate topic.
Topic is Trans women are NOT women. R1 Pro appropriately inquires of Con what their position is on gender being a social construct (or not). Con completely ignores this query, eventually claiming it is utterly irrelevant. Con claims the debate is differentiated by one or the other definitions: women via gender identity or women via biological sex. Con the asserts trans women ARE women simply because they identify as such. No citations or groundwork to establish this. Con claims psychology is a more useful metric than biological sex. This couldn't be anymore absurd, as with the entirety of Con's initial response in R1. No sources from either Pro or Con this round.
R2: Pro states common (scientific/biological) knowledge, rest is subjective commentary. Con replies Pro ignored their reply in R1, goes onto state chromosomes are irrelevant to biological classification of the sexes. Tries to parse the distinction of biological sex on levels of hormones instead of chromosomes, thereby demonstrating a lack of education on their part of human reproduction, physiology, psychology, and biology. Con typically brings into the debate the nonsensical RARE (unnatural) occurrences of intersex, hermaphrodites, etc. and cherry picks quotes from agenda driven scientists to affirm their position.
R3: Pro acknowledges rate genetic defects, then shifts into how some people claim they are animals and use animal pronouns (this is a real thing, so again, reference common knowledge). No properly linked sources and draws attention to detransitioners. Con denounces the destransitioners but admits to being aggressive in previous response(s).
I lost interest after this, because it is clear that both Pro and Con just do not know what they are talking about. Neither cite any relevant sources to back any of their spurious claims. Pro had a better attitude, as admitted by Con when he apologized for being too aggressive, yet Pro's position is far more ground in verifiable fact and rooted in common knowledge then the fantastical wishful thinking of Con.
Con’s argument is purely one of semantics laced with misnomers, which is why anyone who tries to engage in a debate/discussion on the subject of this debate – abortion is murder – ultimately fails to meet their BoP.
Con agrees to both definitions of murder Pro provides, but specifically chooses the second because it includes the term ‘a person’ within it, a term that is the crux of his entire position. Throughout the debate Con never defined what ‘a person’ is, and attributed this term to an “abortion anwhere (stage) in the pregnancy process…” In addition to Con’s misinterpretation and incorrect use of the terms ‘malice’ and ‘intent,’ this (never defining and/or correctly using the term ‘a person’) is where Con failed in his BoP and the debate on the whole.
Con also conflates a pregnancy, which is developing, as being equal to already born children. This is a false equivalency fallacy, since the pregnancy is a process of gestational development whereas a born person is in a process of biological and physiological growth (ie – maturation), it is not gestational development. Also, Con appears to not understand that being human in origin =/= being [a] human (being). This demonstrates to me a clear lack of understanding of the subject matter down to the basic use of factually accurate terminology in arguing their position.
While I could easily go on addressing the flaws in Con’s arguments, the fact remains that when you begin an argument with a false premise (and clear lack of understanding of the subject material), your conclusion will likewise be false.
Pro also did not seem to correctly use the term ‘a person’ either, but his final definition serves his purpose in prevailing in the debate. I do not agree with the insertion of the abortion on animal species into the debate (e.g. – red herring, irrelevant). Both parties spent too much time on definitions and how to interject their interpretation of terms into the debate, rather than debating the actual core issue: is abortion murder.
Pro could have used more sources to support his position but did not take the opportunity to do so. Con’s use of sources was basic (used to back up claimed definitions used in their argument, albeit incorrectly used); and one source, NPR… tisk tisk.
Pro clearly tried to stick to basic and scientific facts (ie - common knowledge), while Con repeated the usual unconvincing pro-life talking points, all of which are highly contestable and routinely debunked. Neither side used truly "reliable" sources; and both conducted themselves with proper decorum. Pro prevailed in this debate.
As you all know I have a legal background, so when it comes to debate, I think/treat it as if we are in a courtroom and whomever provides the more convincing argument (and evidence to substantiate it), shall prevail. That being said, I offer the following analysis for voting:
When I first read PRO's initial R1 post, I immediately had a lot of questions that were not answered. Why begin defending Cuba with antiquated data so far removed from the present that the foundation of the argument immediately crumbles upon itself? The 1950s? That's 70+ years in the past, and what may have worked in the past is clearly not working in the recent years of that nation. Hence the mass exodus and influx of migrants fleeing on boats, often overcrowded, setting sail for North America, a predominately (near absolute) Market Economy. I bore witness to this myself in the mid-1990s as I served a tour at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba where we held many of those Cuban refugees as they were being processed for entrance or denial into America. If the CE in Cuba was so fantastic, why were so many fleeing? Among them were not just the poorest of the poor, but professionals in medicine to athleticism.
When PRO says there is a lower rate of inequality in Cuba, my immediate thought is (based on the aforementioned experience), that's because their government sees their citizenry the same...all poor and all subject to their control. Which is precisely why everyone gets the same things as housing, food and transportation at the same cost/value. If everyone gets the same and has the same, it stifles desire to work harder to get more or just better things.
In the initial listings between Cuba and Vietnam, it would have been nice or more appropriate to compare the two equally. PRO compared life expectancy, inequality, basic services, and education in Cuba but didn't match it to Vietnam where PRO listed foreign investments, infrastructure, poverty rates, and increased GDP. Not the same list as the former, so it felt a little disconnected.
CON's initial response was nearly point by point, which given my legal background, I can appreciate. Especially when kicking it off, more or less, making it clear that this debate should be centered around inherency. And knowing what I know about both countries, and the foreign investments Vietnam has obtained (namely with Hasbro, among other major corporations), it is hard to argue that Cuba is better off than Vietnam given the disparity in economic policies. And I agree, there is no "absolute" economic system, at least any successful one, in my lifetime, or the past, that I am currently aware of. So the argument for an actual "absolute" command or market economic system is a tough one to argue.
CON's analysis of how far V or C went in embracing some measures of a market system was enlightening, but not hard to guess or surmise. And CON is correct on the competition and stagnation aspect. That's more or less a given with what us educated people know. Competition forces innovation. Status quo just carries on as usual. And this was pointed out within.
I have to agree with Athias on PRO's argument of the ME being a causal or instigating factor in increased crime. An economic system has nothing to do with criminality. Criminal behavior has absolutely nothing to do with economics and everything to do with the lack of a nuclear family structure and the obvious nature vs nurture psychological issues inherent with human development, growth and subsequent behavior. Not economic systems or theories.
PRO contents that a CE provides safety, security and stability but really doesn't clarify how each is established let alone maintained in order to substantiate a CE. Even under ME damages PRO lists loss of employment talent; again, given my experiences in the mid-90s, that has already been an issue that continues present day, and Cuba hasn't moved anywhere close to a ME. As such, I cannot help but agree with CON's analysis that the negative impacts were not convincingly linked to a ME.
Okay, I think I have rambled enough. I could go on as I am a long-winded writer when I choose/need to be...that being said, both PRO and CON performed admirably in this debate. Both sourced their arguments well, but I felt "context" could have been more firmly established for some of the cited sources rather than just merely providing a link to them just because they fit what was discussed. The conduct of both were respectable, both followed the parameters outlined, and both stayed on topic (i.e., on the merits of the case). Kudos to you both! I always find economics dry and boring, but the individual takes presented were a pleasure to read. Thank you.