Yes, I just threw this vote together to formalize my thoughts on the debate for you and hey-yo. I made a fatal error when interpreting Con's argument my first time around, where I effectively thought he just agreed with you.
I hope someone else votes so this isn't debate isn't regrettably left as a tie.
In light of the mistake I made in my previous vote, this vote will only be posted in the comments to clarify my position, as it feels scummy to not perform a proper reassessment.
One thing from my first vote that I stand by is that this debate needed a better description. The fact that so much of this debate boiled down to semantics is a product of there being no definition of a just war provided beforehand.
Pro's idea of a war is derived from Merriam-Webster. He claims that a war is reciprocal violence between two countries. In contrast, Con alleges that war comes from the aggressor, meaning that the justness of a war cannot be evaluated from the perspective of a nation acting in self-defence. My main problem with Con's definition is that it begs the question. The more and more I read the debate, the more and more I am convinced Con is equating starting a war with being the very state of being unjust. For example, in the case of Haiti, I understand what Con is saying, that the violence from the revolutionaries was a continuation of the violence sparked by the French. However, it gives off the impression that he is kicking the can back to the first act of aggression from the party he and Pro both agree were in the wrong. The fact that this same can kicking is absent in his other applications of his definition makes it seem as though Con is basing his concept of war around the idea that war is bad because war is always started by bad actors. I am more sympathetic to Con when he talks about the Ukraine War or the American Civil War, but when he combines the French taking initiative against the Haitians, a period of intervening peace, and then a Haitian revolt as a single conflict, it feels like he is assuming his own conclusion. In comparison, Pro's definition does not beg the question at all, as a matter of fact, it is open enough to lend itself to this debate. On top of this, Pro refers to an authoritative third party for his definition, while Con does not. The only part of Pro's definition that both I and Con take issue with is his belief that a war must have violence from both parties, even though his own definition does not state such, as Con highlights.
Basically, I cannot use Con's definition as a lens of analysis because it begs the question.
Given this, the debate reduces to one about whether war is ever needed to resolve a conflict (meaning more moral options are not feasible). Pro stresses that conflicts are often inflexible to other forms of mediation. For example, he discusses how the Confederacy in the American Civil War would not abandon their longing to spread slavery through simple dialogue, leaving war as the only act capable of resolving the dispute over slavery. He also alludes to the idea that war was needed to resolve the conflict with Iraq because there was an irreconcilable difference over who had the right to Kuwait, leaving war as the last resort. Con's rebuttals to this fundamentally fail to propose another practical alternative to war. I already explained this below, so I will keep this brief. Alleging that war is not inevitable because countries do not need to wage war with one another misses the heart of the issue. This is a simple fact about war, not a statement about a workable alternative to war. Talking about the moral character of humankind is just the same, it is not a workable alternative to war (at least not without more elaboration), it is a simple observation about the ubiquity of war being a result of man's faults.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Better Arguments ✔ ✗ ✗
Better Sources ✗ ✔ ✗
Better S and G ✗ ✔ ✗
Better Conduct ✗ ✔ ✗
"If my words and grammar are not clear, thank you for letting me know. I have a hard time putting thought to words. In my mind everything makes sense and is worded in a way I understand. But to put those words in a way for others to understand is tricky. So sometimes I get surprised/shocked when others interpret the words differently."
It wasn't your fault. The grammar you used was correct, I just read a comma where there wasn't one. This is a big deal because if there were a comma there, you would have basically conceded that the Iraqis were the defensive party, which in conjunction with your assessment of Iraq as the unjust party would have basically meant you conceded the debate. In other words, I thought you were agreeing with Pro when you actually weren't.
"In regards to pro saying iraq was justified. I understand golf war to be started by Iraq. Others joinging an existing wat. Right?"
You certainly could view it that way. The issue is that the war had two phases: The invasion of Kuwait, and then the international coalition invading Iraq (desert storm). Pro was calling the coalition the aggressor because they initiated the second phase. I thought you were agreeing with Pro (due to the comma mistake I made) and then simply reiterating the fact that Iraq started the first phase later on.
"In last round pro says, " To settle a different. Ex: Iraq believing Kuwait belongs to them.""
Yes, I could be wrong, but I think it is obvious that Pro is arguing that the coalition was justified in starting the war because it settled a difference with Iraq (a difference which presumably could only be solved through war).
"Im not saying side with me. I am saying that if someone says there were no other possible actions to take for a war they should explain why that is true. If we just look at history then we only know what happened. But to say that is the only possible outcome is unfounded."
He didn't rebut every single possible other action a country could take, but he narrowed down on dialogue/diplomacy. He explicitly states that international affairs are often unresolvable through dialogue. He relates this to history by referencing the American Civil War. I agree there isn't much depth to this argument, but as I will explain below, I could not glean any countervailing analysis from your side of the debate.
" I also gave a response to what other options there were. "dont go to war. " even if russia launches nukes and the president has options. Its anti-nike. Just don't do it. That is an option."
I did not see this argument, admittedly. I skimmed the debate again to find it and I cannot do so, could you refer me to a round where this point was made? Nevertheless, it is sort of a perplexing statement. Saying "just don't go to war" is a solution to war is like saying "just don't steal" is a solution to theft. Unless you elaborated upon this point more, I fail to see how not going to war is a solution to war.
"I critized the attitude that leads to war in round 2. Pro responds to it, quotes it in round 3. Highlighting that the wars were started for reasons that each aggressor did not need. I e. Land resources."
I observed this argument in my initial reading. I did not consider it for the same reason I would not consider the argument above: It is very confusing. Saying a country doesn't need to go to war is not an alternative to war, it is a descriptive statement about the nature of war. Again, it is the equivalent to saying that a solution to robbery is acknowledging that thieves can function without theft. I am more than happy to take a concise statement from a debater and fill in the gaps that they left behind for the sake of brevity, but at some point I need more legwork to be done by the debater themselves.
"Yeah. To criticise their argument. Does that make it my arguenent?"
When you criticise your opponent's argument for presuming there are no alternatives to war, yes, I would expect then that you are arguing there are solutions to war. When you fail to present them and your opponent does allude to the irreconcilability of certain conflicts, I am obviously going to favour your opponent.
I think I'm tagging the right people. Could my vote please be removed, I think a more comprehensive assessment is justified given the exchange I had with hey-yo below.
"I was direct in countering pro's comments on iraq vs kuwait war! Countless times I called the war unjust because iraq is the reason for the war."
This was my bad. My confusion stems from one statement you made:
You stated: "Kuwait is attacked first by Iraq. Kuwait and others respond to Iraq starting a war."
I read this as: "Kuwait is attacked first by Iraq. Kuwait and others respond to Iraq, starting a war." (Note the comma).
This one comment confused me because I thought you conceded that the Gulf War was started by the coalition. In your succeeding points, I thought you were ignorantly conflating the initial Iraqi invasion of Kuwait with the Gulf War. This is fair grounds for a reassessment.
"Pro seems to say iraq was just at the end because in iraqs mind, they should have kuwait."
I do not believe Pro said this at all. I understand he referenced the idea that war can be used to resolve differences between states, but he never stated that Iraq was justified in taking Kuwait because they thought so. He simply acknowledged the fact that a war can be justified because it can be used to settle (presumably irreconcilable) differences (for example, a country believing they are entitled to a piece of territory).
"Pro said there are no other options but provides zero evidence other than war happened. B.o.p is on pro here. And I questioned the logic behind the comment. "
Kind of hard to say it is on somebody to prove there are NO OTHER OPTIONS. If someone argues that conflict can be irreconcilable through other forms of mediation, like dialogue and traditional forms of diplomacy, and you don't take it upon yourself to offer another form of conflict resolution that could work, I fail to see why I should side with you. Do you think Pro has to list every form of conflict resolution and prove why it could not be used? If you did present another form of conflict resolution that I didn't catch, I would like to see it.
"Post 1 is my arguement. Which doesnt have or mention anything about failure to exercise alternative solutions."
You literally stated: "now, Kouen present the usual excuse for war. There is no other option. Unfortunate that this is the same quote given so many times to look away from other options."
Hey Prefix, I see you have had some issues with my allocation of the sources point. First of all, in order to win sources, there has to be a glaring difference in order for me to consider allocating the point. In contrast, debaters who make arguments that are marginally better than their opponents can still merit winning the three points associated with presenting better arguments. Basically, Pro did not make any precise empirical claims where not including a source would be egregious. Moreover, I did not find the sources you presented particularly compelling, thereby leaving me no choice but to leave the sources point tied.
According to rules definitions CAN BE DEBATED.
It has been a while since I used this site, but I always remembered that a definition predefined in the debate description is pretty unquestionable. I would be curious to see what part of the voting guidelines you're referring to.
"Exactly what "argument" did BK put forth? ( zero)"
I explained this in my vote, I thought BK posited a decent, if simplistic, argument in favour of allocating resources toward people who have less. He was effectively making the case that letting individuals hoard large amounts of resources is bad if they could be given to the needy. As he said in the debate, why sit on a surplus of food when there is a hungry man outside your door? Again, it is a simple point, but it worked.
For the economic/fiscal portion of this premise there were basically no statistics backing up any of the arguments, Con did support his side a bit better, arguing that Trump stripping resources in the present will prevent horrible fiscal/economic and health backsliding in the future though. Pro referenced the reduced quality and universality, but the downside of future catastrophe was not addressed. Con effectively argued that Trump could save America from future tragedy in healthcare and the economy, so he bested Pro on this point.
A narrow victory for Con.
Paris Climate Accords.
This was dropped until the final argument, Pro therefore never had the opportunity to respond.
I suppose then that Pro will have to win this point.
Iran Deal
The Iran deal point was backed by Con in the 1st round with an Arab News article suggesting Iran was pursuing nukes in secret. Pro points out how the agreements provisions don't allow such a thing, but Con's whole argument is built on the fact that Iran wasn't abiding by the treaty in the first place, so this doesn't quite address Con's point.
Pro citing some source looking at Iran's uranium stockpiles for instance could have helped here,but he failed to do this. As a result, Con narrowly wins this point.
Economy
Con points out how Trump has helped the economy, but Pro points out how he has only maintained Obama levels of growth, not really that spectacular.
This point was even.
Lies
Trump has been proven to lie more than the vast majority of presidents, Con contradicts this with his statement, but doesn't enforce it with a citation the way Pro had.
Pro was the only one to substantiate his point here, so he wins this.
Pro won this debate because he won most of the premises.
(apologies in advance for the lacklustre grammar/spelling)
It is indeed true that Trump is unpopular, (42% vs. 22%), but this is rather unpersuasive as a voter, people are not perfectly reasonable as Con points out, so appealing to opinion polls when you could appeal to meaningful failures or successes doesn't move the needle at all for me.
It's even on this point.
Covid
The lack of statistics here was a glaring flaw, vaguely gesturing at India's economic backsliding or America's health failures is not persuasive, pointing to Trump's failures/successes, not the failures of lock-downs, India, or America would move me a little more. I did appreciate how Pro argued Trump's failures to follow the Covid restrictions and Trumps meddling with the science though, this was indeed a failure from Trump specifically. Also, pointing toward Biden's greater successes with helping the economically disenfranchised could have added to this case Pro was making, but it lacked the substantiation necessary to move me. It is important to note that just because America is faltering doesn’t mean Trump is, the question is whether or not Trump is making things worse or better, not whether things are good or bad.
A win for Pro on this point.
Impeached
Trump was impeached, but Con argues that this has to do with Trump's low popularity, also, Obama almost got impeached as well. But getting impeached, as Pro points out, is not normal. It also takes a lot of effort to build the case for impeachment as well. Saying Trump just got impeached because he’s unpopular ignores the fact that Trump was found to have violated certain laws.
I say that this was a win for Pro, but not a very meaningful one.
Foreign Diplomats
Con admits this is the best point of Pro's argument, but he merely says that Trump can't control the actions of foreign actors. This doesn't address the infringement on the constitution aspect of the argument nor the argument in general.
A win for Pro.
1st Amendment
Con just pivoted to the 2nd amendment when pushed on this, saying “the democrats are also a threat to the constitution” is not a defence of attacking the media (and therefore the 1st amendment).
I say Pro one this point, but not convincingly.
2nd Amendment.
There were basically no statistics brought up to justify or tarnish the second amendment. All I read was vague mentions of the amendment's wording (with little thorough analysis of said wording) and mentions of the drawbacks and benefits of guns with no real substantiation.
A few simple sentences and links could have helped this point a lot, but as it stands, this point is even.
Civil rights of Minority/Oppressed Groups.
Pro points out a quote that questions Trump's capacity to help minority groups, but Con narrows in on Trans people, arguing originally that they're not normal and therefore bad. Also arguing that trans people are a burden on straight christian men. These 2 points were never really backed up, when questioned on what's wrong with not being normal, there was no response. Con does say that the military is meant for men, so trans women shouldn't be allowed in, but this fails to address trans men in the military.
Put simply, only one minority group was addressed, leaving much of the point untouched. Also, all of Con's counter arguments to the transgender point were addressed well by pro, not expounded upon, and not defended sufficiently.
Yes, Cain had some great cardio, I just think Fedor has the better resume, Coleman, Cro Cop, Big Nog, Kevin Randleman, and we can't forget HONG MAN CHOI.
We each submit a song for a round and the voters decide who chose the better songs. Something like this(https://www.debateart.com/debates/1166-happy-music-battle).
The "generally" means that lessening spanking nationally will generally yield better results than escalating spanking nationally. The word generally was put their to stop weird critiques, like using anecdotes to prove spanking can work in weird situations to prove me wrong.
67% admit to spanking their children.
https://theharrispoll.com/the-harris-poll-makes-headlines-with-its-august-2013-poll-about-spanking-results-of-this-study-are-featured-in-nbc-news-time-and-more/
Throughout the debate Con demonstrated some lacklustre conduct as seen below.
“My opponent is clearly just trying to find on a technicality that vaccines cause autism. He is probably going to use this debate as some anti-vaxx propaganda.”
“It is hard to have an intelligent debate when the opponent ignores clear information, and can't admit they are wrong.”
“I hope the judges can read better than my opponent. I don't even know why he invited me to this and show such a piss poor attempt at reading, and trying to manipulate with screwed up definitions.”
Debates are built to put ideas against each other, not unnecessary insults that only serve to hurt the feelings of your opposition. It seems as though Con’s frustration resulted in them neglecting this fact unfortunately. In contrast, Pro demonstrated some great conduct throughout the debate as seen below.
“With the greatest respect, TheJackle has dropped an info bomb on me, with more noise than I would have hoped for. I do want to commend TheJackle for an impressive amount of work that was put into their response, albeit very limited relevant material was included.”
“I thank my opponent for a quick response. This does not need to be drawn out. It is unfortunate that emotion and distraction appeared to prevail in the last argument.”
Pro avoids retaliation and even complements his opponent at times, this is great conduct.
S AND G
No problems from either side.
SOURCES
No severe problems on either side. Moreover, whilst some studies presented by Con may have lacked relevance to a degree, I see no reason why a marginal lack in relevance warrants a loss of this point.
Study 1- Con states that the study shows that DTaP vaccines don’t cause autism with no quote from the text itself. Pro states that the study fails to show a causal relationship between autism and the DTaP vaccine, but does not rule it out. Con merely gives a brief summary of the study in R2 that lacks quotes or a proper rebuttal. This study appears to side with Pro, as it doesn’t firmly state that DTaP vaccines cause autism, but leaves it up for question, thus supporting the notion that the DTaP vaccine may cause autism. However, it isn’t clear that the study looks at young children, but it is still a great resource to prove that the DTaP vaccine may cause autism.
Study 2- Con uses a quote that merely shows that MMR and thimerosal-containing vaccines don’t cause autism. But, as Pro points out, this is irrelevant to the resolution as it ignores the DTaP vaccine and children under 6 months of age. Also, it was established that DTaP doesn’t contain thimerosal as of now, so the “thimerosal-containing vaccines” section is irrelevant.
Study 3- Nothing is offered by Con as it relates to DTaP vaccines in R1. Pro states that the study spends little to no effort on DTaP vaccines, but it does note that DTaP vaccines are linked to asthma as Pro points out.
Study 4- Once again Con’s quote of the study looks at MMR and thimerosal, unrelated to the debate.
Study 5- This study looks at vaccines in general. Pro says that the study fails to observe DTaP vaccines. But, in R2 Con states that the study does indeed observe DTaP vaccines, although a quote to support this would be appreciated, but Pro never pushed for one. However, in R2, Pro notes that the study doesn’t look at children under 6 months of age, once again a quote would be appreciated. So, this study almost debunks Pro’s claim, but a lack of information about the study leaves me with the impression that DTaP vaccines could still cause autism for children under the age of 6 months.
Study 6- This study only compares thimerosal free vaccines and vaccines with thimerosal in them. So, it’s irrelevant to the resolution.
Study 7- This study ignores the resolution once again. It never even looks at the DTaP vaccine and its impact on young children.
Study 8- Apparently this study excludes the DTaP vaccine as Pro states in R2, nor does it observe young children, so it’s irrelevant.
Study 9- Con shows a study that states DTaP isn’t linked to autism, Pro in R2 even says the study looks at young children. Pro says the study focuses on thimerosal, and says that DTaP vaccines lack thimerosal in the United States, this debate was never limited to the United States of America. This study clearly shows that DTaP for infants is not linked to autism.
Study 10- The study does look at young children, but it’s just another study about thimerosal. As a result, it’s not relevant to the resolution.
Study 11- Another study which looks at thimerosal containing vaccines, does this include DTaP? Con never says it does so I would have to make a few assumptions to make this side with Con, although I would still treat this as a valid study for Con to point to.
Study 12- It isn’t clear that this study includes DTaP, but it does focus on young children. Just like study 11, I have to make some assumptions for this study to prove Con’s position, although it is still a valid study for Con to use.
In short, 3 of the studies appear to prove Con’s point, but one seems to side with Pro, whilst the others don’t firmly support either side well enough, although I would say that many tilt toward Con’s side. Pro must win arguments purely because the word “may” is in the resolution, even if the totality of the evidence sides with Con, some doubt was raised by Pro by flipping study 1.
Yes, I just threw this vote together to formalize my thoughts on the debate for you and hey-yo. I made a fatal error when interpreting Con's argument my first time around, where I effectively thought he just agreed with you.
I hope someone else votes so this isn't debate isn't regrettably left as a tie.
In light of the mistake I made in my previous vote, this vote will only be posted in the comments to clarify my position, as it feels scummy to not perform a proper reassessment.
One thing from my first vote that I stand by is that this debate needed a better description. The fact that so much of this debate boiled down to semantics is a product of there being no definition of a just war provided beforehand.
Pro's idea of a war is derived from Merriam-Webster. He claims that a war is reciprocal violence between two countries. In contrast, Con alleges that war comes from the aggressor, meaning that the justness of a war cannot be evaluated from the perspective of a nation acting in self-defence. My main problem with Con's definition is that it begs the question. The more and more I read the debate, the more and more I am convinced Con is equating starting a war with being the very state of being unjust. For example, in the case of Haiti, I understand what Con is saying, that the violence from the revolutionaries was a continuation of the violence sparked by the French. However, it gives off the impression that he is kicking the can back to the first act of aggression from the party he and Pro both agree were in the wrong. The fact that this same can kicking is absent in his other applications of his definition makes it seem as though Con is basing his concept of war around the idea that war is bad because war is always started by bad actors. I am more sympathetic to Con when he talks about the Ukraine War or the American Civil War, but when he combines the French taking initiative against the Haitians, a period of intervening peace, and then a Haitian revolt as a single conflict, it feels like he is assuming his own conclusion. In comparison, Pro's definition does not beg the question at all, as a matter of fact, it is open enough to lend itself to this debate. On top of this, Pro refers to an authoritative third party for his definition, while Con does not. The only part of Pro's definition that both I and Con take issue with is his belief that a war must have violence from both parties, even though his own definition does not state such, as Con highlights.
Basically, I cannot use Con's definition as a lens of analysis because it begs the question.
Given this, the debate reduces to one about whether war is ever needed to resolve a conflict (meaning more moral options are not feasible). Pro stresses that conflicts are often inflexible to other forms of mediation. For example, he discusses how the Confederacy in the American Civil War would not abandon their longing to spread slavery through simple dialogue, leaving war as the only act capable of resolving the dispute over slavery. He also alludes to the idea that war was needed to resolve the conflict with Iraq because there was an irreconcilable difference over who had the right to Kuwait, leaving war as the last resort. Con's rebuttals to this fundamentally fail to propose another practical alternative to war. I already explained this below, so I will keep this brief. Alleging that war is not inevitable because countries do not need to wage war with one another misses the heart of the issue. This is a simple fact about war, not a statement about a workable alternative to war. Talking about the moral character of humankind is just the same, it is not a workable alternative to war (at least not without more elaboration), it is a simple observation about the ubiquity of war being a result of man's faults.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Better Arguments ✔ ✗ ✗
Better Sources ✗ ✔ ✗
Better S and G ✗ ✔ ✗
Better Conduct ✗ ✔ ✗
"If my words and grammar are not clear, thank you for letting me know. I have a hard time putting thought to words. In my mind everything makes sense and is worded in a way I understand. But to put those words in a way for others to understand is tricky. So sometimes I get surprised/shocked when others interpret the words differently."
It wasn't your fault. The grammar you used was correct, I just read a comma where there wasn't one. This is a big deal because if there were a comma there, you would have basically conceded that the Iraqis were the defensive party, which in conjunction with your assessment of Iraq as the unjust party would have basically meant you conceded the debate. In other words, I thought you were agreeing with Pro when you actually weren't.
"In regards to pro saying iraq was justified. I understand golf war to be started by Iraq. Others joinging an existing wat. Right?"
You certainly could view it that way. The issue is that the war had two phases: The invasion of Kuwait, and then the international coalition invading Iraq (desert storm). Pro was calling the coalition the aggressor because they initiated the second phase. I thought you were agreeing with Pro (due to the comma mistake I made) and then simply reiterating the fact that Iraq started the first phase later on.
"In last round pro says, " To settle a different. Ex: Iraq believing Kuwait belongs to them.""
Yes, I could be wrong, but I think it is obvious that Pro is arguing that the coalition was justified in starting the war because it settled a difference with Iraq (a difference which presumably could only be solved through war).
"Im not saying side with me. I am saying that if someone says there were no other possible actions to take for a war they should explain why that is true. If we just look at history then we only know what happened. But to say that is the only possible outcome is unfounded."
He didn't rebut every single possible other action a country could take, but he narrowed down on dialogue/diplomacy. He explicitly states that international affairs are often unresolvable through dialogue. He relates this to history by referencing the American Civil War. I agree there isn't much depth to this argument, but as I will explain below, I could not glean any countervailing analysis from your side of the debate.
" I also gave a response to what other options there were. "dont go to war. " even if russia launches nukes and the president has options. Its anti-nike. Just don't do it. That is an option."
I did not see this argument, admittedly. I skimmed the debate again to find it and I cannot do so, could you refer me to a round where this point was made? Nevertheless, it is sort of a perplexing statement. Saying "just don't go to war" is a solution to war is like saying "just don't steal" is a solution to theft. Unless you elaborated upon this point more, I fail to see how not going to war is a solution to war.
"I critized the attitude that leads to war in round 2. Pro responds to it, quotes it in round 3. Highlighting that the wars were started for reasons that each aggressor did not need. I e. Land resources."
I observed this argument in my initial reading. I did not consider it for the same reason I would not consider the argument above: It is very confusing. Saying a country doesn't need to go to war is not an alternative to war, it is a descriptive statement about the nature of war. Again, it is the equivalent to saying that a solution to robbery is acknowledging that thieves can function without theft. I am more than happy to take a concise statement from a debater and fill in the gaps that they left behind for the sake of brevity, but at some point I need more legwork to be done by the debater themselves.
"Yeah. To criticise their argument. Does that make it my arguenent?"
When you criticise your opponent's argument for presuming there are no alternatives to war, yes, I would expect then that you are arguing there are solutions to war. When you fail to present them and your opponent does allude to the irreconcilability of certain conflicts, I am obviously going to favour your opponent.
I think I'm tagging the right people. Could my vote please be removed, I think a more comprehensive assessment is justified given the exchange I had with hey-yo below.
"I was direct in countering pro's comments on iraq vs kuwait war! Countless times I called the war unjust because iraq is the reason for the war."
This was my bad. My confusion stems from one statement you made:
You stated: "Kuwait is attacked first by Iraq. Kuwait and others respond to Iraq starting a war."
I read this as: "Kuwait is attacked first by Iraq. Kuwait and others respond to Iraq, starting a war." (Note the comma).
This one comment confused me because I thought you conceded that the Gulf War was started by the coalition. In your succeeding points, I thought you were ignorantly conflating the initial Iraqi invasion of Kuwait with the Gulf War. This is fair grounds for a reassessment.
"Pro seems to say iraq was just at the end because in iraqs mind, they should have kuwait."
I do not believe Pro said this at all. I understand he referenced the idea that war can be used to resolve differences between states, but he never stated that Iraq was justified in taking Kuwait because they thought so. He simply acknowledged the fact that a war can be justified because it can be used to settle (presumably irreconcilable) differences (for example, a country believing they are entitled to a piece of territory).
"Pro said there are no other options but provides zero evidence other than war happened. B.o.p is on pro here. And I questioned the logic behind the comment. "
Kind of hard to say it is on somebody to prove there are NO OTHER OPTIONS. If someone argues that conflict can be irreconcilable through other forms of mediation, like dialogue and traditional forms of diplomacy, and you don't take it upon yourself to offer another form of conflict resolution that could work, I fail to see why I should side with you. Do you think Pro has to list every form of conflict resolution and prove why it could not be used? If you did present another form of conflict resolution that I didn't catch, I would like to see it.
"Post 1 is my arguement. Which doesnt have or mention anything about failure to exercise alternative solutions."
You literally stated: "now, Kouen present the usual excuse for war. There is no other option. Unfortunate that this is the same quote given so many times to look away from other options."
In my opinion, you have quite a difficult case to make. It is certainly a fun topic, however.
No problem!
The hand comparison was certainly difficult to tie together with just 500 characters.
"What "sources" did BK use? ( zero )"
Hey Prefix, I see you have had some issues with my allocation of the sources point. First of all, in order to win sources, there has to be a glaring difference in order for me to consider allocating the point. In contrast, debaters who make arguments that are marginally better than their opponents can still merit winning the three points associated with presenting better arguments. Basically, Pro did not make any precise empirical claims where not including a source would be egregious. Moreover, I did not find the sources you presented particularly compelling, thereby leaving me no choice but to leave the sources point tied.
According to rules definitions CAN BE DEBATED.
It has been a while since I used this site, but I always remembered that a definition predefined in the debate description is pretty unquestionable. I would be curious to see what part of the voting guidelines you're referring to.
"Exactly what "argument" did BK put forth? ( zero)"
I explained this in my vote, I thought BK posited a decent, if simplistic, argument in favour of allocating resources toward people who have less. He was effectively making the case that letting individuals hoard large amounts of resources is bad if they could be given to the needy. As he said in the debate, why sit on a surplus of food when there is a hungry man outside your door? Again, it is a simple point, but it worked.
If you have a problem with my vote then you are free to report it.
Vote 2/2
Healthcare
For the economic/fiscal portion of this premise there were basically no statistics backing up any of the arguments, Con did support his side a bit better, arguing that Trump stripping resources in the present will prevent horrible fiscal/economic and health backsliding in the future though. Pro referenced the reduced quality and universality, but the downside of future catastrophe was not addressed. Con effectively argued that Trump could save America from future tragedy in healthcare and the economy, so he bested Pro on this point.
A narrow victory for Con.
Paris Climate Accords.
This was dropped until the final argument, Pro therefore never had the opportunity to respond.
I suppose then that Pro will have to win this point.
Iran Deal
The Iran deal point was backed by Con in the 1st round with an Arab News article suggesting Iran was pursuing nukes in secret. Pro points out how the agreements provisions don't allow such a thing, but Con's whole argument is built on the fact that Iran wasn't abiding by the treaty in the first place, so this doesn't quite address Con's point.
Pro citing some source looking at Iran's uranium stockpiles for instance could have helped here,but he failed to do this. As a result, Con narrowly wins this point.
Economy
Con points out how Trump has helped the economy, but Pro points out how he has only maintained Obama levels of growth, not really that spectacular.
This point was even.
Lies
Trump has been proven to lie more than the vast majority of presidents, Con contradicts this with his statement, but doesn't enforce it with a citation the way Pro had.
Pro was the only one to substantiate his point here, so he wins this.
Pro won this debate because he won most of the premises.
(apologies in advance for the lacklustre grammar/spelling)
Vote 1/2
Trump is Unpopular
It is indeed true that Trump is unpopular, (42% vs. 22%), but this is rather unpersuasive as a voter, people are not perfectly reasonable as Con points out, so appealing to opinion polls when you could appeal to meaningful failures or successes doesn't move the needle at all for me.
It's even on this point.
Covid
The lack of statistics here was a glaring flaw, vaguely gesturing at India's economic backsliding or America's health failures is not persuasive, pointing to Trump's failures/successes, not the failures of lock-downs, India, or America would move me a little more. I did appreciate how Pro argued Trump's failures to follow the Covid restrictions and Trumps meddling with the science though, this was indeed a failure from Trump specifically. Also, pointing toward Biden's greater successes with helping the economically disenfranchised could have added to this case Pro was making, but it lacked the substantiation necessary to move me. It is important to note that just because America is faltering doesn’t mean Trump is, the question is whether or not Trump is making things worse or better, not whether things are good or bad.
A win for Pro on this point.
Impeached
Trump was impeached, but Con argues that this has to do with Trump's low popularity, also, Obama almost got impeached as well. But getting impeached, as Pro points out, is not normal. It also takes a lot of effort to build the case for impeachment as well. Saying Trump just got impeached because he’s unpopular ignores the fact that Trump was found to have violated certain laws.
I say that this was a win for Pro, but not a very meaningful one.
Foreign Diplomats
Con admits this is the best point of Pro's argument, but he merely says that Trump can't control the actions of foreign actors. This doesn't address the infringement on the constitution aspect of the argument nor the argument in general.
A win for Pro.
1st Amendment
Con just pivoted to the 2nd amendment when pushed on this, saying “the democrats are also a threat to the constitution” is not a defence of attacking the media (and therefore the 1st amendment).
I say Pro one this point, but not convincingly.
2nd Amendment.
There were basically no statistics brought up to justify or tarnish the second amendment. All I read was vague mentions of the amendment's wording (with little thorough analysis of said wording) and mentions of the drawbacks and benefits of guns with no real substantiation.
A few simple sentences and links could have helped this point a lot, but as it stands, this point is even.
Civil rights of Minority/Oppressed Groups.
Pro points out a quote that questions Trump's capacity to help minority groups, but Con narrows in on Trans people, arguing originally that they're not normal and therefore bad. Also arguing that trans people are a burden on straight christian men. These 2 points were never really backed up, when questioned on what's wrong with not being normal, there was no response. Con does say that the military is meant for men, so trans women shouldn't be allowed in, but this fails to address trans men in the military.
Put simply, only one minority group was addressed, leaving much of the point untouched. Also, all of Con's counter arguments to the transgender point were addressed well by pro, not expounded upon, and not defended sufficiently.
Can you remove my vote to correct my grammatical errors?
No I didn't correct my misuse of Pro and Con
I messed up Pro and Con a few times in my vote.
An ethical egoist could justify it from a moral perspective.
I haven't dug extensively into this, but no, I don't really care about protecting cloned kidney cells under the law.
They aren't really making food out of aborted babies, there using cloned kidney cells from a fetus aborted in the 70s.
https://fullfact.org/online/HEK-293-cells/
I am not that good with biology beyond my grade level, but this article put the issue in laymens terms for me.
If my sources get defeated I'd probably just change my mind and concede.
ooh, the first debate about me, I like it.
Yes, Cain had some great cardio, I just think Fedor has the better resume, Coleman, Cro Cop, Big Nog, Kevin Randleman, and we can't forget HONG MAN CHOI.
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/5DzXKC1-w3A/hqdefault.jpg
Be careful putting him on that pedestal, the high elevation might kill him.
Thanks for the votes!!!
We each submit a song for a round and the voters decide who chose the better songs. Something like this(https://www.debateart.com/debates/1166-happy-music-battle).
We need a violent socialist revolution, HURAH #CHOMSKY2020
I was for pineapple pizza before this debate. But yes, your opponent will most likely FF.
Of course it should be allowed.
I enjoyed it!
Something between 5000 and 8000 would be an improvement.
LoL is that javascript?
I agree.
cool to see I influenced someones argument style. LoL
You probably deserved sources too. I just chose not to assign it out of laziness.
Np.
HEY! Thanks for accepting RM, I was worried Eric T was gonna scoop it up and ruin it. Good luck to you in these coming rounds.
here is a forum thread on this.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3924-worker-owned-companies
Lol, no problem.
Just a reminder, less than 2 days to post.
I will try to vote on this.
That's good. Thanks for sorting this out without a forfeit being forced.
That's fair, I'll alter that.
a Bump for any competitors.
The "generally" means that lessening spanking nationally will generally yield better results than escalating spanking nationally. The word generally was put their to stop weird critiques, like using anecdotes to prove spanking can work in weird situations to prove me wrong.
67% admit to spanking their children.
https://theharrispoll.com/the-harris-poll-makes-headlines-with-its-august-2013-poll-about-spanking-results-of-this-study-are-featured-in-nbc-news-time-and-more/
Reminds me of the "this sentence is a lie" paradox.
oops, I messed that up.
REAL MEN ONLY CONSUME MICROWAVABLE QUINOA.
how is better being defined.
I think I can argue this. Hope this will be a great debate.
RFD 3/3
CONDUCT
Throughout the debate Con demonstrated some lacklustre conduct as seen below.
“My opponent is clearly just trying to find on a technicality that vaccines cause autism. He is probably going to use this debate as some anti-vaxx propaganda.”
“It is hard to have an intelligent debate when the opponent ignores clear information, and can't admit they are wrong.”
“I hope the judges can read better than my opponent. I don't even know why he invited me to this and show such a piss poor attempt at reading, and trying to manipulate with screwed up definitions.”
Debates are built to put ideas against each other, not unnecessary insults that only serve to hurt the feelings of your opposition. It seems as though Con’s frustration resulted in them neglecting this fact unfortunately. In contrast, Pro demonstrated some great conduct throughout the debate as seen below.
“With the greatest respect, TheJackle has dropped an info bomb on me, with more noise than I would have hoped for. I do want to commend TheJackle for an impressive amount of work that was put into their response, albeit very limited relevant material was included.”
“I thank my opponent for a quick response. This does not need to be drawn out. It is unfortunate that emotion and distraction appeared to prevail in the last argument.”
Pro avoids retaliation and even complements his opponent at times, this is great conduct.
S AND G
No problems from either side.
SOURCES
No severe problems on either side. Moreover, whilst some studies presented by Con may have lacked relevance to a degree, I see no reason why a marginal lack in relevance warrants a loss of this point.
RFD 2/3
Study 1- Con states that the study shows that DTaP vaccines don’t cause autism with no quote from the text itself. Pro states that the study fails to show a causal relationship between autism and the DTaP vaccine, but does not rule it out. Con merely gives a brief summary of the study in R2 that lacks quotes or a proper rebuttal. This study appears to side with Pro, as it doesn’t firmly state that DTaP vaccines cause autism, but leaves it up for question, thus supporting the notion that the DTaP vaccine may cause autism. However, it isn’t clear that the study looks at young children, but it is still a great resource to prove that the DTaP vaccine may cause autism.
Study 2- Con uses a quote that merely shows that MMR and thimerosal-containing vaccines don’t cause autism. But, as Pro points out, this is irrelevant to the resolution as it ignores the DTaP vaccine and children under 6 months of age. Also, it was established that DTaP doesn’t contain thimerosal as of now, so the “thimerosal-containing vaccines” section is irrelevant.
Study 3- Nothing is offered by Con as it relates to DTaP vaccines in R1. Pro states that the study spends little to no effort on DTaP vaccines, but it does note that DTaP vaccines are linked to asthma as Pro points out.
Study 4- Once again Con’s quote of the study looks at MMR and thimerosal, unrelated to the debate.
Study 5- This study looks at vaccines in general. Pro says that the study fails to observe DTaP vaccines. But, in R2 Con states that the study does indeed observe DTaP vaccines, although a quote to support this would be appreciated, but Pro never pushed for one. However, in R2, Pro notes that the study doesn’t look at children under 6 months of age, once again a quote would be appreciated. So, this study almost debunks Pro’s claim, but a lack of information about the study leaves me with the impression that DTaP vaccines could still cause autism for children under the age of 6 months.
Study 6- This study only compares thimerosal free vaccines and vaccines with thimerosal in them. So, it’s irrelevant to the resolution.
Study 7- This study ignores the resolution once again. It never even looks at the DTaP vaccine and its impact on young children.
Study 8- Apparently this study excludes the DTaP vaccine as Pro states in R2, nor does it observe young children, so it’s irrelevant.
Study 9- Con shows a study that states DTaP isn’t linked to autism, Pro in R2 even says the study looks at young children. Pro says the study focuses on thimerosal, and says that DTaP vaccines lack thimerosal in the United States, this debate was never limited to the United States of America. This study clearly shows that DTaP for infants is not linked to autism.
Study 10- The study does look at young children, but it’s just another study about thimerosal. As a result, it’s not relevant to the resolution.
Study 11- Another study which looks at thimerosal containing vaccines, does this include DTaP? Con never says it does so I would have to make a few assumptions to make this side with Con, although I would still treat this as a valid study for Con to point to.
Study 12- It isn’t clear that this study includes DTaP, but it does focus on young children. Just like study 11, I have to make some assumptions for this study to prove Con’s position, although it is still a valid study for Con to use.
In short, 3 of the studies appear to prove Con’s point, but one seems to side with Pro, whilst the others don’t firmly support either side well enough, although I would say that many tilt toward Con’s side. Pro must win arguments purely because the word “may” is in the resolution, even if the totality of the evidence sides with Con, some doubt was raised by Pro by flipping study 1.