It didn’t receive a mention in the RFD since I didn’t view it as relevant to why you won the debate. I think the first response doesn’t really make sense -- your response to “that’s false” can’t be “oh, but that’s an axiom that doesn’t need justification.” I like the second response about moral intuition, would have liked to see more of that -- the reason it wasn’t debate-winning, though, is that it merely proved *possibility,* not *probability.* Con was pushing the burden of proof on you to prove your assumption of moral realism (which was clearly a kritik, so pointing that out was enough to win you the debate, but I think it’s good strategy to do “even if” responses in case there’s some judge who doesn’t buy that).
Since you asked for feedback: The tl;dr of this is that, even though you’re right that Con basically ran a post-fiat kritik, you should take Con at their best case and do an “even if”-style engagement (e.g., “even if you don’t buy that this is a kritik or that this is irrelevant, here’s why Con’s argument is false”).
The best non-kritik version of Con’s argument would be to challenge you to justify a coherent ethical theory based on which your first and second arguments were true. I’d recommend doing that, perhaps in R2. For example, your first argument appears vaguely Rawlsian or libertarian, while your second argument seems vaguely communitarian. It’s possible to reconcile those two frameworks and offer a justification for both -- for example, you could say that moral uncertainty means we should weigh ethical considerations from a variety of normative ethical theories, including liberalism, libertarianism, and communitarian ethics. Or you could simply argue that moral intuition is valuable. You’re significantly more educated about these arguments than I am and I think they’d have bolstered your case.
I would also recommend taking Con at their best case and arguing against moral skepticism beyond just saying “we can accept moral axioms” (which is a bare assertion, though I suppose rule 6 allows you to make that bare assertion and let it be uncontested). The simplest response to skep arguments, as far as I know, is to simply say that insofar as moral realism is logically possible, it is less potentially costly to act as if moral realism were true. I believe you made a similar argument in your debate against 16kadams on animal rights, in which you said: “Presume Pro because it’s more egregiously unjust to deny rights where they were due than to award rights where they weren’t.” You didn’t say that in the context of metaethics, but I would guess that it’s as compelling in that context as well.
When I first saw the topic, I came up with these three thoughts, would be interested in hearing your opinions since they’re kind of different than your case:
(1) Not allowing people to immigrate into your country is a form of discrimination because you allow people to be born within your home. The fact that they just happen to be from a different country—often because they were born there, an arrangement they didn’t choose to have—is just random luck and that random luck has very real implications for the quality of life of people. Access to economic opportunity and a social safety net shouldn’t be based on a random lottery of birth, so justice requires that migration is a human right.
(2) A large proportion of migration would be from developing countries to developed countries under such a model. Developed countries are often responsible for the suffering of people in developing countries today in two ways: the first is they directly engaged in process such as colonialism that resulted in diminished long-run economic capacity and weaker institutions, and the second is the process of drawing borders—in other words, the existence of borders in much of the developing world, such as in Africa, is the product of developed country government officials drawing lines on maps, which cut off access to opportunity and caused violence. Thus, there’s a restorative obligation to not shut the doors to people whose condition you are responsible for. This doesn’t apply in all cases or even a majority of cases of migration, but certainly a significant amount.
(3) This has the potential to improve the lives of people—both people who remain in the developing world (due to remittances and increased human capital development) and people who move. Reducing poverty and saving the lives of thousands is a good in itself. To add to this, it helps the countries who get more migration, since it allows them to have a new, younger, more mobile workforce and boosts demand.
I don't think I'm gonna vote on this debate, mainly because my RFD -- and my philosophy of judging -- would discount the pre-fiat K entirely and I believe that judge intervention is justified in the case of pre-fiat Ks (I don't have general opposition to pre-fiat Ks, but I'm only willing to vote on them on certain resolutions where I think the K is justified, and I think pre-fiat Ks have a higher standard of proof and need to be much more thoroughly explained, particularly with the alt). I assume that's not conducive to the DART format of debate. I'll throw in an RFD at some point -- I think bsh1 won nonetheless, based on my flow, though I'll have to look at that again and might change my mind -- but I will refrain from voting for this reason. I'm happy to discuss my general skepticism of pre-fiat Ks on seemingly balanced, debatable topics at a time when I'm less busy. Edit for clarity: I don't automatically discount all pre-fiat Ks on seemingly balanced/debatable topics, I meant I'd have discounted *this* K because it doesn't meet the higher burden of proof I'm looking for in pre-fiat Ks on such topics.
==================================================================
>Reported vote: jamesgilbert // Moderator action: Removed<
3 points to Pro (arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Pro presented good arguments like the ontological and kalaam argument and con did not do enough to negate
[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter merely *mentions* two arguments that Pro makes, without explaining why those arguments were compelling to Pro or why the refutations that Con made throughout the entire round weren't enough to take these two arguments down, apart from the generic justification of "[C]on did not do enough to negate." (2) The voter does not bring up a single aspect of Con's offense, thus neglecting the entirety of Con's case.
==================================================================
I will do my best to find time and vote on this. Hopefully, I'll be able to provide an RFD that's more extensive than usual with suggestions, because this is one of the few topics I think I have a decent amount of knowledge about.
I'm not contesting the value of freedom in general, though. I'm just saying there are legitimate restrictions on the right to choice to protect third parties from harm.
"Admittedly, the argument is somewhat difficult to counter, especially if you're going full bore and requiring everyone who can to get vaccinated."
Honestly, I didn't find the liberty argument compelling one bit. The really simple response seems to be the harm principle: it's completely okay to restrict liberty to prevent third party harm. If liberty were absolute, there's no argument against legalizing murder or assault. Clearly, we restrict liberty to protect public health all the time. I dunno if it's just me, but I thought it was a really weak argument.
==================================================================
>Reported vote: Kommandant_Nomad // Moderator action: Removed<
1 point to Pro (conduct), 3 points to Con (arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Argument's to CON as PRO's argument's revolved around god is true because Christians said he was. Conduct to PRO for CON's FF and borderline ad hominems. Grammar was fine. Neither listed sources for their arguments.
[*Reason for removal*] Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to do one of two things. Either they must analyze arguments from both sides of the debate or they must explain why the burden of proof in the debate is structured in such a way that they only need to analyze arguments from one side. The voter only discusses Pro’s case, failing to discuss Con’s contribution to the debate at all, thus failing to meet these requirements.
==================================================================
==================================================================
>Reported vote: AdmiralSn4ckb4r // Moderator action: Removed<
7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: There is no factual evidence to suggest that god exists. All it is, is your word against theirs
[*Reason for removal*] Vote bomb. This vote has no explanation for any points it awards.
==================================================================
==================================================================
>Reported vote: SupaDudz // Moderator action: NOT removed<
3 points to Pro (arguments). Reasons for voting decision: RM does not follow the alliteration format where every word must be alliteration. He switches off causing to subjectively vote for Type as his alliteration was more straight forward and followed the rule. This is not a rap battle, and RM sets it up as a rap battle where barely anything alliterates, so PRO wins
[*Reason for removal*] As this is a non-standard debate, the voter's subjective assessment of who had the better alliterations is enough for a vote to not be removed. Even if this debate employed more in-depth standards, the voter explains why they thought Pro had better alliterations; thus, the vote is sufficient.
==================================================================
==================================================================
>Reported vote: armoredcat // Moderator action: NOT removed<
1 point to Con (conduct). Reasons for voting decision: Pro FF a round, so conduct to Con. Both had good alliterations.
[*Reason for removal*] A forfeit is sufficient reason to award conduct. Since this is a non-standard debate, the voter’s subjective assessment is also sufficient to vote a tie on arguments. As such, the vote is sufficient.
==================================================================
==================================================================
>Reported vote: SupaDudz // Moderator action: Removed<
3 points to Con (arguments). Reasons for voting decision: I was very close to voting PRO throughout the debate, but RM decides to concede the rebuttals in Round 5 with a stupid saying. Darn... I vote CON because PRO concedes all r5 and Deaths rebuttals
[*Reason for removal*] The voter needs to explain which rebuttal that Pro conceded was sufficient to win Con the debate. It is not enough to say *that* Pro conceded Con’s R4. This would be analogous to giving argument points to one side because the other side forfeited one round out of five and the entire RFD being "forfeit."
==================================================================
==================================================================
>Reported vote: Alec // Moderator action: Removed<
2 points to Con (sources). Reasons for voting decision: Pro and Con's source count was comparable. Con cited mostly reliable sources, whereas Pro cited less reliable sources.
[*Reason for removal*] This RFD is too generic and could be copy/pasted into virtually any debate.
==================================================================
==================================================================
>Reported vote: Our_Boat_is_Right // Moderator action: Removed<
3 points to Con (arguments), 2 points to Pro (sources). Reasons for voting decision: Pro basically says "the truth is the truth." Con refutes by saying there has to be evidence and you can say that about anything. Pro has no evidence, but simply states his religious beliefs. However, Pro used bible verses as sources.
[*Reason for removal*] While the vote on argument points is (barely) sufficient, sources are insufficiently explained. The voter needs to reference specific sources, explain why those sources were important to the case of one side, and compare the reliability of that side's sources to those of the other side's. It is not enough to merely say that one side *had* sources.
==================================================================
Moderator note: Ramshutu's RFD that was removed was:
"Pro made a well rounded, well sourced argument that provided multiple alternative games that would be contenders as the best game. While a subjective bit substantiated argument would have been acceptable and could have beaten con: pro doesn’t make one, his primary thrust was to mostly dismiss cons arguments by complaining that he was simply presenting data -which wasn’t even entirely true. Pro could have argued that the criteria con used were invalid but did not. As a result, almost every specific game, and all specific points raised by con were effectively left unrefuted.
Con sweeps source hands down, as he used multiple reliable links and citations for his stats, pro did not.
Con wins on conduct, not only is the opening argument riddled with profanity: pro is petulant, belligerent and childish throughout.
Grammar/spelling go to con due to pros wall of text approach, where he refuses to use line breaks or formatting, his occasional capitalization of words that should not be capitalized (eg: “Has” in the middle of the GoW section), several sentences starting with but and because, and frequent and poorly phrased sentences that I had to read several times: “how well the sales did or the payed critics think”. Also, I think technically the phrase “cunt-breathed” requires a hyphen."
==================================================================
>Reported vote: blamonkey // Moderator action: NOT removed<
3 points to Con (arguments). Reasons for voting decision: https://docs.google.com/document/d/12q7jqJmC0HxbXtnbqozU6mWKCYXi5J0HFYftzY_kaFA/edit?usp=sharing The summary and rfd together constitute 9 pages. The rfd is at the bottom of the document, but some advice is sprinkled throughout the summary if you are interested. PM me for any questions/clarifications.
[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter extensively discusses most of the main arguments and counterarguments made in the debate, and explains why those led to Con winning the debate. Thus, the vote is more than sufficient.
==================================================================
==================================================================
>Reported vote: Ramshutu // Moderator action: Removed<
7 points to Con (conduct, S&G, arguments, sources). Reasons for voting decision: {RFD exceeds 1,000 characters; refer the vote for the RFD}
[*Reason for removal*] (1) Conduct is insufficiently explained. To award conduct points, the voter is required to point to specific instances of poor conduct, compare that conduct between both sides, and explain why one side's conduct was sufficiently poor and sufficiently worse than the other side's to award conduct points. This vote fails to do that. (2) Argument points are insufficiently explained. The voter only analyzes the positive arguments made by Con (who the voter mislabels as Pro), failing to analyze any of Pro's case or all the clash in the debate, and not doing the weighing analysis required to justify neglecting a significant portion of one side's case. (3) The reasoning for awarding sources is too generic and could be copy/pasted into any debate and still be meaningful.
==================================================================
==================================================================
>Reported vote: Ramshutu // Moderator action: NOT removed<
3 points to Con (arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Con clearly spelled out that the trilema was false, by explaining a fourth possibility. This would be enough on its face to invalidate pros argument. As Pro doesn’t offer any substantial reason to rule this example out, other than a highly semantic argument focusing on the definition of legend: con clearly wins arguments on the grounds he demonstrated the trillema was false. In addition: con clearly cites examples of Lies told by Jesus, and examples where his family thought he was mad. Unfortunately for pro - the argument in favour of Jesus not being a liar or mad was entirely uncompelling and smacked of cherry picking - simply selecting all the times Jesus supposedly didn’t lie or didn’t appear mad cited from a clearly biased source isn’t a clear indication that he is not a liar, or a “lunatic”, and as a result cons position clearly wins on these two examples also.
[*Reason for non-removal*] While the voter fails to take into account every single argument in the debate, they do explain that, given that this is a fact-based topic, a single option that is not covered under the trilemma, if unrefuted, is sufficient to win Con the debate. Due to this weighing analysis from the voter, the vote is sufficient.
==================================================================
==================================================================
>Reported vote: Whiteflame // Moderator action: NOT removed<
3 points to Pro (arguments). Reasons for voting decision: {RFD exceeds 1,000 characters; refer the vote for the RFD}
[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter analyzes the clash on most of the main arguments in the debate and weighs them in light of counterarguments made. This is all a voter is required to do as per the voting guidelines. Thus, the vote is more than sufficient.
==================================================================
Votes don't need to have an issue with every point they award to be removed. They can be removed if their explanation for one point is insufficient. I'd suggest simply (a) recasting the vote and awarding just arguments, or (b) referencing the specific conduct from Pro that you thought warranted awarding the conduct points to Con. This is true even when the conduct violations are "clear," just as it is true when the argument points are "clear" or spelling and grammar is "clear."
I made a typo in the vote removal message. I meant to say: given that Con also had conduct violations (e.g. calling Pro "dipshit"), your RFD needed to have comparative analysis of why Pro's conduct was specifically *worse* than Con's, rather than just why Pro's conduct was bad. Thus, for your RFD to be more thorough on conduct, it needs two things: (1) Specific reference to what Pro said that was a conduct violation and (2) explanation of why those conduct violations constitute worse conduct than Con's in the debate.
==================================================================
>Reported vote: Logical-Master // Moderator action: Removed<
4 points to Con (conduct, arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Pro argued that ACO was the best game of the year due to its RPG elements and open world features. CON countered that there were a bunch of other games released in 2018 that accomplished this just as well (if not better) : God War 4, Far Cry 5, Marvels Spiderman, Monster Hunter World, etc. Pro's rebuttal to this was mostly unsubstantiated opinions (as CON pointed out) and as hominem attacks. As such, I buy CON's contention that PRO conceded to his arguments. The other arguments raised in the debate (i.e. ACO is not even the best ACO game in the series and open world games are not even unique anymore) didn't really weigh into my analysis since CON effectivally conceded to them and since they technically are not relevant to a debate about what is the best game of 2018. I give conduct to CON since PRO reduced the debate to being about personal attacks. I don't mind personal attacks per se when used artfully or for theatrical purposes, but one shouldn't use them as a substitute for a counter argument or else it's just bad form. That and we can tell PRO is just taking things too personally (i.e don't ever accept my debates again!).
[*Reason for removal*] While the voter sufficiently explains arguments, they fail to meet the standards for awarding conduct points. The voter is required to reference *specific* text in the debate which they consider to be conduct violations and *compare* the conduct of one side against the conduct of the other side. Since the voter acknowledges that Pro also engages in ad hominem attacks, the voter is required to explain why Con's specific poor conduct is *worse* than Pro's conduct in the debate.
==================================================================
==================================================================
>Reported vote: RationalMadman // Moderator action: NOT removed<
3 points to Pro (arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Yes means yes and no means no. Con says 'no'. Con forfeits Round 1. Pro contradicts 'no' with an almighty 'yes'. Pro states that since the consensus is 0.9r equals 1 (which they didn't prove was the consensus with any reliable source), they have pushed the burden of proof onto Con. Con lost.
[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter examines the sole argument presented in the debate and explains why it, combined with the forfeit, leads Pro to win. The vote is, thus, sufficient.
==================================================================
==================================================================
>Reported vote: RationalMadman // Moderator action: NOT removed<
3 points to Pro (arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Con relies on NASA not lying to us. If the ISS footage is all real and it's an angle issue then that explains the lack of curvature shown among other things in the footage Pro brings up. The reason Com ends up feofeiting is that Pro calmly explains that it's not a conspiracy theory to question what were told. Pro gives images that inoly the Earth keeos going on past the illusory 'edge' as oppoose to curving down past it. Pro also gets accused by Con of appealing to popukrity with a minority opinion and Pro calmly defends this. Con has a fisheye lens in their source and says weirdly that if the lens was a fisheye lens we would see the curvature but the weirdest part of the I is deception is the footage was with fisheye lens and even then the curvature was barely visible in an illusory manner which Pro correctly points out.
[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter does provide some assessment of Pro's arguments and Con's responses, though it is mainly focused on Pro's arguments. While more explanation may be warranted (especially with regard to Con's positive argumentation), the voter provides sufficient detail to meet the standards by explaining that Con's material relies on trusting NASA data.
==================================================================
==================================================================
>Reported vote: RationalMadman // Moderator action: NOT removed<
7 points to Pro (conduct, S&G, arguments, sources). Reasons for voting decision: Full Forfeit
[*Reason for non-removal*] Full forfeit debates are not moderated unless the voter awards points to the side that engaged in the full forfeit. Since the voter awards points to the side that did not forfeit, the vote is clearly sufficient.
==================================================================
==================================================================
>Reported vote: Ramshutu // Moderator action: NOT removed<
3 points to Con (arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Pro conceded.
[*Reason for non-removal*] Conceded debates are not moderated unless the voter awards points to the side that concedes. Since this voter awards points to the side that did not concede, awarding arguments points is acceptable.
==================================================================
==================================================================
>Reported vote: 3RU7AL // Moderator action: Removed<
1 point to Pro (conduct), 3 points to Con (arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Argument points awarded to CON for round one, "1 - 0.9r = 0.0r1 =/= 0.0r" and round two "0.9r9 is as irrational a number as 0.0r1. Just because the string of infinite 9s ends in a 9 doesn't at all make it less irrational. The number being the same as those preceding it doesn't make it any less attainable..." and CON directly addresses the debate resolution at the end of round two with, "...0.0r(ending in a 1) is an actual number and therefore the difference between 0,9r and 1 is real." I find these arguments to be logically consistent as well as persuasive. Argument points not awarded to PRO for round one arguments detailed as 1, 2, and 3. PRO defeats their own resolution with their argument 1 "x = 0.9r" and "10x = 9.9r". PRO's logic fails to be persuasive on argument 2 with, "1 - 0.9r = 0.0r = 0 ergo 1 = 0.9r" which implicitly relies on the assumption that there is no remainder at all, which would rely on rounding the remainder to zero, which contradicts their point for argument 1 which would (for example only) presumably be 10 - 10x =/= 0. PRO's logic fails to be persuasive on argument 3 with, "But this can't be done because the 9's go on infinitely. You would have to get past the 9's to fit the 5. You can't get past the 9's." because, (for example only) in mathematics, infinity plus one has meaning for the hyperreals, and also as the number ?+1 (omega plus one) in the ordinal numbers and surreal numbers (wiki). Conduct points awarded to PRO for dispassionate attention to the topic. Conduct points not awarded to CON for the round one comment, "This is a lie." which I believe constitutes an ad hominem attack on PRO.
[*Reason for removal*] (1) This vote fails to meet the criteria for awarding conduct points. In non-forfeit debates, to award conduct, one debater must have been excessively rude, profane, or unfair, or broke the debate rules. The voter merely points to a sentence "this is a lie," which is (a) not an ad hominem attack and (b) does not meet these criteria. (2) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter merely quotes pieces of text of debaters and calls them persuasive or unpersuasive, without analyzing the clash that occurred in the debate, explaining *why* the arguments were persuasive, or engaging in any kind of weighing analysis. All the analysis that the voter *does* make is analysis which is not mentioned by Con in the debate, and is merely the voter engaging in judge intervention.
==================================================================
==================================================================
>Reported vote: Death23 // Moderator action: NOT removed<
3 points to Pro (arguments). Reasons for voting decision: The instigator's position is a truism. There is no serious debate in mathematics as to whether or not 0.999r = 1. The reason people have a difficult time grasping how 0.999r = 1 has to do with difficulty grasping an infinite series. We are accustomed to the finite and the infinite is something that simply isn't part of our everyday experience, and this is where Pro's position is weakest. Pro merely posits that 1/3 = 0.333r and that 2/3 = 0.666r. This is a bare assertion, but is later supported rather weakly. This assertion is attacked by Con with his rounding argument. However, Con's attack fails because Pro correctly pointed out that no rounding was being supposed. Con's other attack with the 2.9999(r)7 also fails because Pro correctly pointed out that this was a change in terms (i.e. off topic, and this is true - The topic is 0.9999(r).
[*Reason for non-removal*] While the voter does violate the principle of tabula rasa judging by intervening in the debate with their own opinion, they do reference specific arguments in the debate and explain why Pro's counterarguments to Con's case were sufficient to grant Pro the victory in terms of arguments. Thus, the vote is sufficient.
==================================================================
The criteria for an insufficient vote on arguments are:
1) The voter needs to reference specific arguments/counterarguments from both sides
2) The voter needs to analyze and explain why those specific issues that were won by one side were enough to win that side the debate, in terms of the relative strength of arguments/importance of those issues
These aren't criteria for a "good" RFD or a sound one. These are simply the criteria for *bare minimum* sufficiency. I'm sure bsh1 would be happy to have a site discussion on allowing debaters to opt in to higher standards or some alternative solution if the community wishes for a higher standard, but for now, the standard is pretty liberal, and it seems to me that Earth's vote meets that standard, to a degree that none of the removed votes do.
I have one question, not about the RFD but about my speeches:
What did you think about the way I structured my R3 (i.e. the three questions/points of crystallization I identified)? It's an unconventional structure, and I've only ever seen Whiteflame do it on DDO, but the reason I did it is I wanted my R3 to not be pretty much the same speech as R2 and I wanted it to have a different push (i.e. R2 was filled with turns and extensions and identifying voting issues, so I wanted R3 to have a retrospective tone as if it were an RFD of the debate). Do you think that worked?
If no, what do you think my R3 structure should have been?
And perhaps some rhetoric to make it sound reasonable, e.g. if twelve randomly selected people unanimously agree that a law is so egregiously unjust a person shouldn't be convicted for breaking it, it probably is unjust.
Not necessarily direct empirical evidence. Maybe: (1) Polls about opinions on particular issues by people who've been called to jury duty before or among particular juries and (2) examples of *nullification* rather than just of unjust convictions.
I also don't think your three points were that separable. I think they were one point.
And your case should've really had some explanation of why juries are likely to nullify in the right places, I think. Those were holes in Thett's case and in yours, in my view. I might be wrong, but it seems that way.
So I guess the way I'd structure this case is:
(1) Harms: that unjust laws exist (with examples and explanations of why they're unjust + analytical warrants re: why they're likely to exist) + that alternative solutions (e.g. lobbying) have failed to fix them
(2) Solvency: that jury nullification helps end or mitigate these injustices in some unique way (here, I'd say (a) jurors are likely to nullify in cases where unjust laws exist, (b) jurors are a unique check on governmental oppression, and (c) possibly about how the fact that twelve randomly selected people think a law is so overwhelmingly unjust that they should nullify, especially given the pressures to not nullify, probably means that the law is unjust in actuality, i.e. justice is defined by people or something of the sort -- I'm not so sure about (c)).
(3) Impact: The first level is obviously why securing justice is important; in addition, I'd add the law as integrity bit here, and say that blind legalism is nonsense and that the reasoning behind laws is the metric for upholding laws. So everything you said under (1). I think, broadly, the "law as integrity" bit doesn't function as offense but as defense (i.e. preemption), or as a *component* of this case that doesn't affirm independently, but I agree that it's useful to include.
So these three things would be one independent contention.
And then perhaps another independent contention about long-term political change (e.g. why jury nullification allows for lobbying to function more effectively, why it incentivizes/pressures governments to change laws, etc.).
It didn’t receive a mention in the RFD since I didn’t view it as relevant to why you won the debate. I think the first response doesn’t really make sense -- your response to “that’s false” can’t be “oh, but that’s an axiom that doesn’t need justification.” I like the second response about moral intuition, would have liked to see more of that -- the reason it wasn’t debate-winning, though, is that it merely proved *possibility,* not *probability.* Con was pushing the burden of proof on you to prove your assumption of moral realism (which was clearly a kritik, so pointing that out was enough to win you the debate, but I think it’s good strategy to do “even if” responses in case there’s some judge who doesn’t buy that).
Since you asked for feedback: The tl;dr of this is that, even though you’re right that Con basically ran a post-fiat kritik, you should take Con at their best case and do an “even if”-style engagement (e.g., “even if you don’t buy that this is a kritik or that this is irrelevant, here’s why Con’s argument is false”).
The best non-kritik version of Con’s argument would be to challenge you to justify a coherent ethical theory based on which your first and second arguments were true. I’d recommend doing that, perhaps in R2. For example, your first argument appears vaguely Rawlsian or libertarian, while your second argument seems vaguely communitarian. It’s possible to reconcile those two frameworks and offer a justification for both -- for example, you could say that moral uncertainty means we should weigh ethical considerations from a variety of normative ethical theories, including liberalism, libertarianism, and communitarian ethics. Or you could simply argue that moral intuition is valuable. You’re significantly more educated about these arguments than I am and I think they’d have bolstered your case.
I would also recommend taking Con at their best case and arguing against moral skepticism beyond just saying “we can accept moral axioms” (which is a bare assertion, though I suppose rule 6 allows you to make that bare assertion and let it be uncontested). The simplest response to skep arguments, as far as I know, is to simply say that insofar as moral realism is logically possible, it is less potentially costly to act as if moral realism were true. I believe you made a similar argument in your debate against 16kadams on animal rights, in which you said: “Presume Pro because it’s more egregiously unjust to deny rights where they were due than to award rights where they weren’t.” You didn’t say that in the context of metaethics, but I would guess that it’s as compelling in that context as well.
When I first saw the topic, I came up with these three thoughts, would be interested in hearing your opinions since they’re kind of different than your case:
(1) Not allowing people to immigrate into your country is a form of discrimination because you allow people to be born within your home. The fact that they just happen to be from a different country—often because they were born there, an arrangement they didn’t choose to have—is just random luck and that random luck has very real implications for the quality of life of people. Access to economic opportunity and a social safety net shouldn’t be based on a random lottery of birth, so justice requires that migration is a human right.
(2) A large proportion of migration would be from developing countries to developed countries under such a model. Developed countries are often responsible for the suffering of people in developing countries today in two ways: the first is they directly engaged in process such as colonialism that resulted in diminished long-run economic capacity and weaker institutions, and the second is the process of drawing borders—in other words, the existence of borders in much of the developing world, such as in Africa, is the product of developed country government officials drawing lines on maps, which cut off access to opportunity and caused violence. Thus, there’s a restorative obligation to not shut the doors to people whose condition you are responsible for. This doesn’t apply in all cases or even a majority of cases of migration, but certainly a significant amount.
(3) This has the potential to improve the lives of people—both people who remain in the developing world (due to remittances and increased human capital development) and people who move. Reducing poverty and saving the lives of thousands is a good in itself. To add to this, it helps the countries who get more migration, since it allows them to have a new, younger, more mobile workforce and boosts demand.
"debaters should be held accountable only for the arguments that they do make."
I'd say that qualifies as a norm. And I mean a norm on DebateArt and in American high school debate.
Like I said, I'll respond to the rest of this stuff later.
That's the standard norm, which is why I'm declining to vote on this debate.
I don't think I'm gonna vote on this debate, mainly because my RFD -- and my philosophy of judging -- would discount the pre-fiat K entirely and I believe that judge intervention is justified in the case of pre-fiat Ks (I don't have general opposition to pre-fiat Ks, but I'm only willing to vote on them on certain resolutions where I think the K is justified, and I think pre-fiat Ks have a higher standard of proof and need to be much more thoroughly explained, particularly with the alt). I assume that's not conducive to the DART format of debate. I'll throw in an RFD at some point -- I think bsh1 won nonetheless, based on my flow, though I'll have to look at that again and might change my mind -- but I will refrain from voting for this reason. I'm happy to discuss my general skepticism of pre-fiat Ks on seemingly balanced, debatable topics at a time when I'm less busy. Edit for clarity: I don't automatically discount all pre-fiat Ks on seemingly balanced/debatable topics, I meant I'd have discounted *this* K because it doesn't meet the higher burden of proof I'm looking for in pre-fiat Ks on such topics.
==================================================================
>Reported vote: jamesgilbert // Moderator action: Removed<
3 points to Pro (arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Pro presented good arguments like the ontological and kalaam argument and con did not do enough to negate
[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter merely *mentions* two arguments that Pro makes, without explaining why those arguments were compelling to Pro or why the refutations that Con made throughout the entire round weren't enough to take these two arguments down, apart from the generic justification of "[C]on did not do enough to negate." (2) The voter does not bring up a single aspect of Con's offense, thus neglecting the entirety of Con's case.
==================================================================
I'll try to throw in a vote in the next couple of days.
I will do my best to find time and vote on this. Hopefully, I'll be able to provide an RFD that's more extensive than usual with suggestions, because this is one of the few topics I think I have a decent amount of knowledge about.
I'm not contesting the value of freedom in general, though. I'm just saying there are legitimate restrictions on the right to choice to protect third parties from harm.
"It’s much more about examining why this matters than it is about explaining why these freedoms should exist." I don't understand what this means.
"Admittedly, the argument is somewhat difficult to counter, especially if you're going full bore and requiring everyone who can to get vaccinated."
Honestly, I didn't find the liberty argument compelling one bit. The really simple response seems to be the harm principle: it's completely okay to restrict liberty to prevent third party harm. If liberty were absolute, there's no argument against legalizing murder or assault. Clearly, we restrict liberty to protect public health all the time. I dunno if it's just me, but I thought it was a really weak argument.
I'm so glad that this got voted on.
Sorry I couldn't vote.
This really sucks, guys. Sorry I couldn't get to it.
"So, if I don’t explain my reasoning my vote is removed."
Yes.
==================================================================
>Reported vote: Kommandant_Nomad // Moderator action: Removed<
1 point to Pro (conduct), 3 points to Con (arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Argument's to CON as PRO's argument's revolved around god is true because Christians said he was. Conduct to PRO for CON's FF and borderline ad hominems. Grammar was fine. Neither listed sources for their arguments.
[*Reason for removal*] Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to do one of two things. Either they must analyze arguments from both sides of the debate or they must explain why the burden of proof in the debate is structured in such a way that they only need to analyze arguments from one side. The voter only discusses Pro’s case, failing to discuss Con’s contribution to the debate at all, thus failing to meet these requirements.
==================================================================
==================================================================
>Reported vote: AdmiralSn4ckb4r // Moderator action: Removed<
7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: There is no factual evidence to suggest that god exists. All it is, is your word against theirs
[*Reason for removal*] Vote bomb. This vote has no explanation for any points it awards.
==================================================================
==================================================================
>Reported vote: SupaDudz // Moderator action: NOT removed<
3 points to Pro (arguments). Reasons for voting decision: RM does not follow the alliteration format where every word must be alliteration. He switches off causing to subjectively vote for Type as his alliteration was more straight forward and followed the rule. This is not a rap battle, and RM sets it up as a rap battle where barely anything alliterates, so PRO wins
[*Reason for removal*] As this is a non-standard debate, the voter's subjective assessment of who had the better alliterations is enough for a vote to not be removed. Even if this debate employed more in-depth standards, the voter explains why they thought Pro had better alliterations; thus, the vote is sufficient.
==================================================================
==================================================================
>Reported vote: armoredcat // Moderator action: NOT removed<
1 point to Con (conduct). Reasons for voting decision: Pro FF a round, so conduct to Con. Both had good alliterations.
[*Reason for removal*] A forfeit is sufficient reason to award conduct. Since this is a non-standard debate, the voter’s subjective assessment is also sufficient to vote a tie on arguments. As such, the vote is sufficient.
==================================================================
==================================================================
>Reported vote: SupaDudz // Moderator action: Removed<
3 points to Con (arguments). Reasons for voting decision: I was very close to voting PRO throughout the debate, but RM decides to concede the rebuttals in Round 5 with a stupid saying. Darn... I vote CON because PRO concedes all r5 and Deaths rebuttals
[*Reason for removal*] The voter needs to explain which rebuttal that Pro conceded was sufficient to win Con the debate. It is not enough to say *that* Pro conceded Con’s R4. This would be analogous to giving argument points to one side because the other side forfeited one round out of five and the entire RFD being "forfeit."
==================================================================
[redacted]
[comment redacted]
==================================================================
>Reported vote: Alec // Moderator action: Removed<
2 points to Con (sources). Reasons for voting decision: Pro and Con's source count was comparable. Con cited mostly reliable sources, whereas Pro cited less reliable sources.
[*Reason for removal*] This RFD is too generic and could be copy/pasted into virtually any debate.
==================================================================
==================================================================
>Reported vote: Our_Boat_is_Right // Moderator action: Removed<
3 points to Con (arguments), 2 points to Pro (sources). Reasons for voting decision: Pro basically says "the truth is the truth." Con refutes by saying there has to be evidence and you can say that about anything. Pro has no evidence, but simply states his religious beliefs. However, Pro used bible verses as sources.
[*Reason for removal*] While the vote on argument points is (barely) sufficient, sources are insufficiently explained. The voter needs to reference specific sources, explain why those sources were important to the case of one side, and compare the reliability of that side's sources to those of the other side's. It is not enough to merely say that one side *had* sources.
==================================================================
Looks interesting. I'll try to throw in a vote.
Moderator note: Ramshutu's RFD that was removed was:
"Pro made a well rounded, well sourced argument that provided multiple alternative games that would be contenders as the best game. While a subjective bit substantiated argument would have been acceptable and could have beaten con: pro doesn’t make one, his primary thrust was to mostly dismiss cons arguments by complaining that he was simply presenting data -which wasn’t even entirely true. Pro could have argued that the criteria con used were invalid but did not. As a result, almost every specific game, and all specific points raised by con were effectively left unrefuted.
Con sweeps source hands down, as he used multiple reliable links and citations for his stats, pro did not.
Con wins on conduct, not only is the opening argument riddled with profanity: pro is petulant, belligerent and childish throughout.
Grammar/spelling go to con due to pros wall of text approach, where he refuses to use line breaks or formatting, his occasional capitalization of words that should not be capitalized (eg: “Has” in the middle of the GoW section), several sentences starting with but and because, and frequent and poorly phrased sentences that I had to read several times: “how well the sales did or the payed critics think”. Also, I think technically the phrase “cunt-breathed” requires a hyphen."
Sorry, forgot to tag you in the previous comment.
==================================================================
>Reported vote: blamonkey // Moderator action: NOT removed<
3 points to Con (arguments). Reasons for voting decision: https://docs.google.com/document/d/12q7jqJmC0HxbXtnbqozU6mWKCYXi5J0HFYftzY_kaFA/edit?usp=sharing The summary and rfd together constitute 9 pages. The rfd is at the bottom of the document, but some advice is sprinkled throughout the summary if you are interested. PM me for any questions/clarifications.
[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter extensively discusses most of the main arguments and counterarguments made in the debate, and explains why those led to Con winning the debate. Thus, the vote is more than sufficient.
==================================================================
==================================================================
>Reported vote: Ramshutu // Moderator action: Removed<
7 points to Con (conduct, S&G, arguments, sources). Reasons for voting decision: {RFD exceeds 1,000 characters; refer the vote for the RFD}
[*Reason for removal*] (1) Conduct is insufficiently explained. To award conduct points, the voter is required to point to specific instances of poor conduct, compare that conduct between both sides, and explain why one side's conduct was sufficiently poor and sufficiently worse than the other side's to award conduct points. This vote fails to do that. (2) Argument points are insufficiently explained. The voter only analyzes the positive arguments made by Con (who the voter mislabels as Pro), failing to analyze any of Pro's case or all the clash in the debate, and not doing the weighing analysis required to justify neglecting a significant portion of one side's case. (3) The reasoning for awarding sources is too generic and could be copy/pasted into any debate and still be meaningful.
==================================================================
==================================================================
>Reported vote: Ramshutu // Moderator action: NOT removed<
3 points to Con (arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Con clearly spelled out that the trilema was false, by explaining a fourth possibility. This would be enough on its face to invalidate pros argument. As Pro doesn’t offer any substantial reason to rule this example out, other than a highly semantic argument focusing on the definition of legend: con clearly wins arguments on the grounds he demonstrated the trillema was false. In addition: con clearly cites examples of Lies told by Jesus, and examples where his family thought he was mad. Unfortunately for pro - the argument in favour of Jesus not being a liar or mad was entirely uncompelling and smacked of cherry picking - simply selecting all the times Jesus supposedly didn’t lie or didn’t appear mad cited from a clearly biased source isn’t a clear indication that he is not a liar, or a “lunatic”, and as a result cons position clearly wins on these two examples also.
[*Reason for non-removal*] While the voter fails to take into account every single argument in the debate, they do explain that, given that this is a fact-based topic, a single option that is not covered under the trilemma, if unrefuted, is sufficient to win Con the debate. Due to this weighing analysis from the voter, the vote is sufficient.
==================================================================
Okay. Someone reported it.
==================================================================
>Reported vote: Whiteflame // Moderator action: NOT removed<
3 points to Pro (arguments). Reasons for voting decision: {RFD exceeds 1,000 characters; refer the vote for the RFD}
[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter analyzes the clash on most of the main arguments in the debate and weighs them in light of counterarguments made. This is all a voter is required to do as per the voting guidelines. Thus, the vote is more than sufficient.
==================================================================
Votes don't need to have an issue with every point they award to be removed. They can be removed if their explanation for one point is insufficient. I'd suggest simply (a) recasting the vote and awarding just arguments, or (b) referencing the specific conduct from Pro that you thought warranted awarding the conduct points to Con. This is true even when the conduct violations are "clear," just as it is true when the argument points are "clear" or spelling and grammar is "clear."
I made a typo in the vote removal message. I meant to say: given that Con also had conduct violations (e.g. calling Pro "dipshit"), your RFD needed to have comparative analysis of why Pro's conduct was specifically *worse* than Con's, rather than just why Pro's conduct was bad. Thus, for your RFD to be more thorough on conduct, it needs two things: (1) Specific reference to what Pro said that was a conduct violation and (2) explanation of why those conduct violations constitute worse conduct than Con's in the debate.
==================================================================
>Reported vote: Logical-Master // Moderator action: Removed<
4 points to Con (conduct, arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Pro argued that ACO was the best game of the year due to its RPG elements and open world features. CON countered that there were a bunch of other games released in 2018 that accomplished this just as well (if not better) : God War 4, Far Cry 5, Marvels Spiderman, Monster Hunter World, etc. Pro's rebuttal to this was mostly unsubstantiated opinions (as CON pointed out) and as hominem attacks. As such, I buy CON's contention that PRO conceded to his arguments. The other arguments raised in the debate (i.e. ACO is not even the best ACO game in the series and open world games are not even unique anymore) didn't really weigh into my analysis since CON effectivally conceded to them and since they technically are not relevant to a debate about what is the best game of 2018. I give conduct to CON since PRO reduced the debate to being about personal attacks. I don't mind personal attacks per se when used artfully or for theatrical purposes, but one shouldn't use them as a substitute for a counter argument or else it's just bad form. That and we can tell PRO is just taking things too personally (i.e don't ever accept my debates again!).
[*Reason for removal*] While the voter sufficiently explains arguments, they fail to meet the standards for awarding conduct points. The voter is required to reference *specific* text in the debate which they consider to be conduct violations and *compare* the conduct of one side against the conduct of the other side. Since the voter acknowledges that Pro also engages in ad hominem attacks, the voter is required to explain why Con's specific poor conduct is *worse* than Pro's conduct in the debate.
==================================================================
==================================================================
>Reported vote: RationalMadman // Moderator action: NOT removed<
3 points to Pro (arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Yes means yes and no means no. Con says 'no'. Con forfeits Round 1. Pro contradicts 'no' with an almighty 'yes'. Pro states that since the consensus is 0.9r equals 1 (which they didn't prove was the consensus with any reliable source), they have pushed the burden of proof onto Con. Con lost.
[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter examines the sole argument presented in the debate and explains why it, combined with the forfeit, leads Pro to win. The vote is, thus, sufficient.
==================================================================
==================================================================
>Reported vote: RationalMadman // Moderator action: NOT removed<
3 points to Pro (arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Con relies on NASA not lying to us. If the ISS footage is all real and it's an angle issue then that explains the lack of curvature shown among other things in the footage Pro brings up. The reason Com ends up feofeiting is that Pro calmly explains that it's not a conspiracy theory to question what were told. Pro gives images that inoly the Earth keeos going on past the illusory 'edge' as oppoose to curving down past it. Pro also gets accused by Con of appealing to popukrity with a minority opinion and Pro calmly defends this. Con has a fisheye lens in their source and says weirdly that if the lens was a fisheye lens we would see the curvature but the weirdest part of the I is deception is the footage was with fisheye lens and even then the curvature was barely visible in an illusory manner which Pro correctly points out.
[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter does provide some assessment of Pro's arguments and Con's responses, though it is mainly focused on Pro's arguments. While more explanation may be warranted (especially with regard to Con's positive argumentation), the voter provides sufficient detail to meet the standards by explaining that Con's material relies on trusting NASA data.
==================================================================
==================================================================
>Reported vote: RationalMadman // Moderator action: NOT removed<
7 points to Pro (conduct, S&G, arguments, sources). Reasons for voting decision: Full Forfeit
[*Reason for non-removal*] Full forfeit debates are not moderated unless the voter awards points to the side that engaged in the full forfeit. Since the voter awards points to the side that did not forfeit, the vote is clearly sufficient.
==================================================================
==================================================================
>Reported vote: Ramshutu // Moderator action: NOT removed<
3 points to Con (arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Pro conceded.
[*Reason for non-removal*] Conceded debates are not moderated unless the voter awards points to the side that concedes. Since this voter awards points to the side that did not concede, awarding arguments points is acceptable.
==================================================================
I asked for my vote to get deleted when vote moderation was announced, as it was a counter-vote...
Would appreciate if you could delete it.
==================================================================
>Reported vote: 3RU7AL // Moderator action: Removed<
1 point to Pro (conduct), 3 points to Con (arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Argument points awarded to CON for round one, "1 - 0.9r = 0.0r1 =/= 0.0r" and round two "0.9r9 is as irrational a number as 0.0r1. Just because the string of infinite 9s ends in a 9 doesn't at all make it less irrational. The number being the same as those preceding it doesn't make it any less attainable..." and CON directly addresses the debate resolution at the end of round two with, "...0.0r(ending in a 1) is an actual number and therefore the difference between 0,9r and 1 is real." I find these arguments to be logically consistent as well as persuasive. Argument points not awarded to PRO for round one arguments detailed as 1, 2, and 3. PRO defeats their own resolution with their argument 1 "x = 0.9r" and "10x = 9.9r". PRO's logic fails to be persuasive on argument 2 with, "1 - 0.9r = 0.0r = 0 ergo 1 = 0.9r" which implicitly relies on the assumption that there is no remainder at all, which would rely on rounding the remainder to zero, which contradicts their point for argument 1 which would (for example only) presumably be 10 - 10x =/= 0. PRO's logic fails to be persuasive on argument 3 with, "But this can't be done because the 9's go on infinitely. You would have to get past the 9's to fit the 5. You can't get past the 9's." because, (for example only) in mathematics, infinity plus one has meaning for the hyperreals, and also as the number ?+1 (omega plus one) in the ordinal numbers and surreal numbers (wiki). Conduct points awarded to PRO for dispassionate attention to the topic. Conduct points not awarded to CON for the round one comment, "This is a lie." which I believe constitutes an ad hominem attack on PRO.
(Continued below.)
(Continued from above.)
[*Reason for removal*] (1) This vote fails to meet the criteria for awarding conduct points. In non-forfeit debates, to award conduct, one debater must have been excessively rude, profane, or unfair, or broke the debate rules. The voter merely points to a sentence "this is a lie," which is (a) not an ad hominem attack and (b) does not meet these criteria. (2) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter merely quotes pieces of text of debaters and calls them persuasive or unpersuasive, without analyzing the clash that occurred in the debate, explaining *why* the arguments were persuasive, or engaging in any kind of weighing analysis. All the analysis that the voter *does* make is analysis which is not mentioned by Con in the debate, and is merely the voter engaging in judge intervention.
==================================================================
==================================================================
>Reported vote: Death23 // Moderator action: NOT removed<
3 points to Pro (arguments). Reasons for voting decision: The instigator's position is a truism. There is no serious debate in mathematics as to whether or not 0.999r = 1. The reason people have a difficult time grasping how 0.999r = 1 has to do with difficulty grasping an infinite series. We are accustomed to the finite and the infinite is something that simply isn't part of our everyday experience, and this is where Pro's position is weakest. Pro merely posits that 1/3 = 0.333r and that 2/3 = 0.666r. This is a bare assertion, but is later supported rather weakly. This assertion is attacked by Con with his rounding argument. However, Con's attack fails because Pro correctly pointed out that no rounding was being supposed. Con's other attack with the 2.9999(r)7 also fails because Pro correctly pointed out that this was a change in terms (i.e. off topic, and this is true - The topic is 0.9999(r).
[*Reason for non-removal*] While the voter does violate the principle of tabula rasa judging by intervening in the debate with their own opinion, they do reference specific arguments in the debate and explain why Pro's counterarguments to Con's case were sufficient to grant Pro the victory in terms of arguments. Thus, the vote is sufficient.
==================================================================
That makes sense.
Thanks for the detailed RFD and the feedback, I appreciate it :)
The criteria for an insufficient vote on arguments are:
1) The voter needs to reference specific arguments/counterarguments from both sides
2) The voter needs to analyze and explain why those specific issues that were won by one side were enough to win that side the debate, in terms of the relative strength of arguments/importance of those issues
These aren't criteria for a "good" RFD or a sound one. These are simply the criteria for *bare minimum* sufficiency. I'm sure bsh1 would be happy to have a site discussion on allowing debaters to opt in to higher standards or some alternative solution if the community wishes for a higher standard, but for now, the standard is pretty liberal, and it seems to me that Earth's vote meets that standard, to a degree that none of the removed votes do.
I'd suggest replacing "gays" with "gay people" or "gay and bisexual people" or "LGB individuals."
I have one question, not about the RFD but about my speeches:
What did you think about the way I structured my R3 (i.e. the three questions/points of crystallization I identified)? It's an unconventional structure, and I've only ever seen Whiteflame do it on DDO, but the reason I did it is I wanted my R3 to not be pretty much the same speech as R2 and I wanted it to have a different push (i.e. R2 was filled with turns and extensions and identifying voting issues, so I wanted R3 to have a retrospective tone as if it were an RFD of the debate). Do you think that worked?
If no, what do you think my R3 structure should have been?
Thanks.
Thanks so much for the vote and the feedback. It's very appreciated.
And perhaps some rhetoric to make it sound reasonable, e.g. if twelve randomly selected people unanimously agree that a law is so egregiously unjust a person shouldn't be convicted for breaking it, it probably is unjust.
Not necessarily direct empirical evidence. Maybe: (1) Polls about opinions on particular issues by people who've been called to jury duty before or among particular juries and (2) examples of *nullification* rather than just of unjust convictions.
I also don't think your three points were that separable. I think they were one point.
And your case should've really had some explanation of why juries are likely to nullify in the right places, I think. Those were holes in Thett's case and in yours, in my view. I might be wrong, but it seems that way.
So I guess the way I'd structure this case is:
(1) Harms: that unjust laws exist (with examples and explanations of why they're unjust + analytical warrants re: why they're likely to exist) + that alternative solutions (e.g. lobbying) have failed to fix them
(2) Solvency: that jury nullification helps end or mitigate these injustices in some unique way (here, I'd say (a) jurors are likely to nullify in cases where unjust laws exist, (b) jurors are a unique check on governmental oppression, and (c) possibly about how the fact that twelve randomly selected people think a law is so overwhelmingly unjust that they should nullify, especially given the pressures to not nullify, probably means that the law is unjust in actuality, i.e. justice is defined by people or something of the sort -- I'm not so sure about (c)).
(3) Impact: The first level is obviously why securing justice is important; in addition, I'd add the law as integrity bit here, and say that blind legalism is nonsense and that the reasoning behind laws is the metric for upholding laws. So everything you said under (1). I think, broadly, the "law as integrity" bit doesn't function as offense but as defense (i.e. preemption), or as a *component* of this case that doesn't affirm independently, but I agree that it's useful to include.
So these three things would be one independent contention.
And then perhaps another independent contention about long-term political change (e.g. why jury nullification allows for lobbying to function more effectively, why it incentivizes/pressures governments to change laws, etc.).