Since most abortion debates are about the same, I’ll keep this short.
Pro uses the usual ideas: science says life starts at conception, so we’re killing a human being. Even if they were in a coma, it’s unjustified to kill them. You know the gist. (Feedback: All the other things are not necessary since it’s not a mothers inaction that leads to the child’s death in this case.) Anyways, very verbose but better safe than sorry.
Con goes along with the standard line of reasoning too: unreasonably expecting women to financially support, and that the fetus has pre consciousness (though, fails to give any convincing support why this should be brought over pros ideas).
Pro strengthens his arguments by pointing out the potential for consciousness is what produces the human value of life. However, Pro doesn’t weigh whether it’s acceptable to force a woman to raise a child in an extremely difficult environment full of suffering. He merely says it’s unjust to kill regardless of future reasons and plants his feet there.
Con stacks on economic benefits from legalizing abortion, but doesn’t really state this importance since I don’t know how to weigh lives lost against economics (if pro wins his main argument). Con gives a better analogy pointing out (essentially) a construction project barely in development, despite having potential, wouldn’t count as destroying a full completed building. Feedback: This is a little bit better, but he fails to go the usual pro choice step of pointing out that the personhood should then approach only when the fetus is actually born (or perhaps even after the third trimester, some argue).
Pro goes in circles for a little bit since it’s not clear why mere potential can cause the human life’s value. However, it does seem he means eventually the fetus will develop which means it has the value of a human life.
Con tries a desperado last move where the women who undergo illegal abortions is extremely dangerous, but this point comes in very late so I am not sure I should include this or not.
In the end I think Pro wins. Cons argument was all over the place and not as clear as I’ve seen Pro choice make it. He has to make things clearer and point out the absurdity of potential being equivalent to a human life. For example, I’ve seen people bring up the fact that sex itself has potential for human life, but condoms reduce the possibility by 99% — would that be murder, is an excellent question to force pro to make their argument more precise. Pro did well with his argument — he pointed out it wasn’t sure what was going on with the fetus, and was uncontested with his ideas. Con also failed to talk of the woman’s liberty which may contribute to the pro choice decision by a large margin. Hence, con fails.
the issue is that I want to focus on the "systemic" (relating to system), and people bring attention to the "grab of power" part and force it to require a Law in place, completely misinterpret the argument despite it having seven supports. clearly that's not going to work against the conspiracy folks.
ThoughtCo gets too excited and directly mentions Law as a part of the Systemic Racism at the very end, but it's not any explicit law that's making the Racism Systemic. Opponents hound on the single word "Law" to try to single handedly bring down the case, and that's just not favorable.
I’m trying to summarize it for disbelievers, since if it’s too complex they’ll ask me to prove all seven different composing parts the article mentions. If 20 pages of research couldn’t convince them, I think it’s more of an issue that I couldn’t make the framework simpler and easier to argue.
GAP5. Chachere, B. P. (1983). The economics of Thomas Sowell: A critique of markets and minorities. The Review of Black Political Economy, 12(2), 163-177.
Okay so who won? We can probably just dismiss r5 since nothing really happened there. R1 and R2 is probably most important. Pro wins the Trinity point contradiction as Con concedes it, that's easy. He says the bible has too many errors and contradictions, which Con didn't address, so Pro wins that too. He also wins the point about eye for and eye and young women being taken, since Con did not address those. Alright. That seems somewhat significant. Which points did Con win?
Con tells us that the Allah's wrath can be used for killing and death arbitrarily, though doesn't properly address the idea that Allah himself is the one doing it. This argument is shaky. Con does point out with help from the article that they are not tolerant towards minority groups or other religions. He is winning in the real world argument practically speaking. But I do not know how heavy to weigh this argument since he didn't suggest how important this was. Okay. That's fine. Con spends a lot of paragraphs saying the "deceiver" makes things confusing especially with Shaitan. However, Pro addresses this properly telling us that the context matters, and Con didn't really address if the new context got rid of "deceiver". I am not sure if Pro's ignorance of Honor killing is Genuine mistake, or an attempt to bypass the argument. Con definitely wins that argument.
Okay, it's a surprisingly close call. Pro has definitive Contradictions and advocate of violence for Bible (though didn't address the avoidance to fall for temptation). He also has the trinity being confusing, and that Allah was not necessarily a Deceiver.
What's left is Con's real world impacts, especially in the killing of others who don't agree with them, plus the honor killings. Honestly, he probably should've gone with the actual "how does the religion's people act" argument in the first place. Since meaning and interpretation doesn't match up with person's actions. I buy that the Muslim people *with* evidence from passages are encouraged to enact "allah's wrath". Since the real examples do show this.
I can understand what Pro means, but he needs more to explain why the Muslims may be misguided and a poor representation of Islam in general. Perhaps showing the Christian side of things could help. Pro got too entangled up trying to explain his solidity beliefs and appealing to "who is right, who is wrong", while forgetting about what the Christianity contradiction means. He could have argued that it was so confusing and impossible to resolve, people lose faith in Christianity and that is just untenable, thus possibly losing to even a morally unjust Islamic group of persons. He could also point out that people misinterpret, perhaps expanding the Deceiver point and tell us that the Con's examples are very extreme.
Pro gets a bit annoyed and saying that Islam is peaceful, repeating that the religion is not following violence since there is not as much resulting actions in real life. He also tells us that the verses are related to War, though I am not sure what that means. He repeats points that con hasn't addressed, with the eye for eye and keeping young girls to themselves. He knows Con is pointing out society thinking is different all the time, but Islam establishes solid rules with no murder or rape. Pro's argument gets a little muddy here, but he does conclude that Muslims get rewards for not doing sins or doing rewards, while arguing that the bible doesn't have same meaning passages.
Con improves his arguments by telling us that the Muslims are not religiously tolerant. He also tells that one to deem a hypocrite they can be furious and use "allah's wrath" as blind justification. Thus the murder and war would indeed be justified. He continues by saying the sinning violently to bring others to Islam would still teach love and peace somehow. He warns us that the "state of war" is constant, somehow.
Pro argues that the cursing is done by Allah himself and not the person following Allah. He also says the violently forcing people into Muslim would still be sinning, so Con's argument wouldn't apply. He also says there is sinning except in wars, and then blindly says that the society itself has no respect and no conscious. However, he does say the Muslims did give women rights... this is starting to feel like it is deviating from the debate a little, but okay.
Con comes back with evidence a little late to outweigh Pro's showing of the "rape the young girl" quote from Bible, arguing that it took quite a bit to get rid of killing for being victim of rapes. He argues that Muhammad inherently used compulsion and terror, and that they were blackmailing or slaughtering those that refused. (Uhh... evidence please? This argument's kind of new...)
Pro comes back and rambles on about how he does not want to change his belief, for ... whatever reason, it's unclear. He tells us that it does however give a firm foundation and also happiness. He also randomly says some various topics go against Christianity, but it's really too late for that now. He merely dismisses Muhammad's killing as saying it was perfect. Well, there's really no support either for this. He does however repeat the Bible contradictions, which are indeed questionable and confusing.
Con leaves a final parting shot in trying to show "1 contradiction in Quran", which I refuse as his burden of proof, since this is obviously absurd and just a confident statement from Pro. Common sense feels like he would still have to show the overall topic which is Islam vs Christianity.
This debate is a comparison of two religions that are vastly different... ho boy here we go.
So Pro attacks Christianity first, stating that Jesus being God was absurd, especially if God worships God and seems absurd, especially if God is not a man. And if Jesus is a part of God yet can do nothing, that is self contradictory. He further asks who wrote the gospels, and the holy book has too many contradictions and errors. He establishes his confidence in asking Con to find one error in the Quran, then lists a few bible errors, but doesn't tell us how there are errors here. He concludes with the ideas that Quran has never been changed or significant errors.
Con concedes the part regarding the trinity, but brings attention to Allah. He tells us that Allah has been "Great deceiver" especially with quotes from Quran, then brings the ideas that Allah is brutal and sadistic, especially in the quote "allah is severe in requiting". He explains that Allah is the one to fear and Shaitan offers the same thing, so there is no significant difference between the enemy and allah. He continues by telling us Islan is about the surrender, especially the men in charge of women, instilling fear, and continues how the punishment of dropping Muslim faith is very severe. He should have done more analysis, but it's okay. The article is quoted as the Muslim community has even silenced ex-Muslims, while Christianity has had no such examples... yet. ( I commend con's bravery for doing this, as Christians do have... a history of terrible campaigns.)
Pro Counters that Allah is a planner, taking the positive meaning with ambiguous meaning of "mkr". He argues that the context doesn't work since it has to have a negative meaning after it. He argues that Con is changing the meaning of words, especially with mistranslation, as it donates to ex Muslims. Hmm. He then points out the Lord has been Deceiving as well, with a few quotes, and continues that the people being scared is fine as he decides all the heaven or hell. There are also quotes for fearing the God in the Bible too, so it is not unique to Muslims. Pro also points out the Christianity's lack of information and heavy errors are severe. He also points out the "rape young women" quote from 31:17, but merely dismisses Muhammad doing a similar thing (according to Con) due to already covering the reasons in other debates. (Well... could you summarize these reasons please? Haha.) He also completely ignores the real world impacts of Muslim community...
Con goes back to being somewhat lazy, telling you that the Allah god does encourage being brutal and savage, while the bible had nothing encouraging severe violence. He continues that the Quran has a war encouraging people murdering those in God's name, and that the Quran is too inflexible, and that Pro didn't significantly show bible changes. Con also tells us that Bible has shown not to give into temptation, while islam is silent on this.
RFD: You know, I must have confused my notes when I wrote down Con had the analysis argument be more thorough, I thought he had that but that might have been in the comments. The only argument he gave was being insightful with Math versus Rational Madman, though he more or less tries to make the debate showcase itself, rather than try to explain exactly why it shows he's "Good". In any case, the rest of my analysis stands, and I'm not completely sure con has enough evidence here to win.
pro gives a few good arguments about Con failing to defeat any one significant and lists examples of Whiteflame, Bones, etc. as truly good debaters. Con's refutation isn't super convincing in regards to raising himself above the status quo. He tried to show his enemy was serious and good in the fetus USD debate, but there is a mere assertion so I can’t really buy it just like that. The other debates also seemed like weak assertions since he’s just tossing out ideas with very little refutation on how his enemies usually forfeit or have no good win record. His source of welcoming noobs to the site seems irrelevant to noob sniping. So I do not accept that argument. If Con didn't take BOP, I probably would've left a tie or even Con win.
Barney, I think the issue is your vote received a lot of attention and it felt you didn’t really have a lot of good justification for it (especially for a moderator). You might think or know in your heart something that we can’t see, but you have to tell us. I myself am quite confused too. Could you go into more detail what your vote means?
I don’t really understand Barney’s first vote with sources too, and the second one isn’t much better. I didn’t notice any severe errors with conduct, but again I’m a pretty logical guy.
I have voted. You can ask any questions but I felt it was already won by round 3. Pro was wandering in circles trying to detail and bicker about how the Votes cannot even miss a simple line of zip code (which I am sure, other elections have missed out on. Though Con did not make that argument, so whatever). And also trying to accuse the lobbying as conspiracy to commit the crime and perhaps even bribe the officials, but there was no such evidence from Time Magazine. What a crazy debate from Pro.
The issue is Mr. Chris has a very straightforward assuming approach and you have your own refusal approach. I think whiteflame didn’t see how your questions directly tackled the framework and so it’s difficult to win by his standards. I’m a little more generous and I know how moral frameworks usually work, so I thought you did an alright job. But it could really go either way. If I was arguing con and you offered me this argument I would not commit to it as written.
I agree, however Whiteflame is extremely strict about these type of debate topics so I can see how he chose con, especially since oromagi is the type to think “Aha the debate is set in stone”. However Your display was the precise implication. The title was deceptive (Ex “a fetus is a person” complicated into the idea that the fetus has the personhood rights). I think a less trapping/strict title could have given more leeway, but also perhaps Oromagi would not have accepted. Since there is little way his style can win a debate as incredibly complex as abortion.
If I can’t prove pro, I think basically nobody can prove pro. I might be one of the best researched persons regarding systemic racism on here haha. Not trying to brag too much, just saying. XD
I am not 100% convinced on Barney's giving sources and conduct, but I do agree argument could have really gone either way. Pro was compelling in a different way from Con.
Pro continues digging into the personhood idea. He tells us about the abortion argument, and that the debate means there is unclear standard for personhood. He also repeats the idea of no distinction, and telling us that the humans can also do bad things. Such as oppressing racial groups, engineering holocaust, so on and so forth. So the Animal devouring baby being seen as somewhat usual by humans doesn't really cause a noticeable difference with level of agency.
Con continues adding on countless semantic arguments, but doesn't really make an argument compared to Abortion's standard for personhood. I think Con is just missing the point that the entire point is that the animals can/should be treated as persons, by pro's argument. That our standard should not be different because there is no true different of persons, thus giving animals "personhood" as moral agents.
If Con could just show the crucial source showing Animals are too instinctual to clearly think about their actions, he might have won the debate. But the end is very blurry. Con's best arguments showed that we treat animals kinder than we treat humans -- allowing them to eat their offspring, and attack us, while preventing us from attacking them or eating our own offspring. But Pro seems to be implying the animals' instincts might be mistakes too. Just as we kill each other and cause crimes, there doesn't seem to be an issue with their violent or immoral-by-human standards. I think Con forgot to make the case, that some things were allowable by animals big scale, while we mostly refute the conflicts -- or have a high cooperation ability. Our moral high ground, is what I believe Con was trying to show. Just one or two crucial sentences, and Con might have had it.
Pro cleverly circumvents his own defeat by talking more closely about personhood rather than mere persons. He talks about that the farm animals are same as entities that have self determination. He also said that the humans were not considered persons, but should still be persons -- thus having ethical consequences when doing bad things to them. An excellent argument. He also points out that animal farming isn't essential, making it unnecessary, and also talks about con's popularity fallacy.
Con repeats on his semantic arguments, talking about "persuasive definition" which is supposed to be emotional instead. He points out that animals do not have the same autonomy to accord persons, and the Wikipedia definition of personhood clearly goes against pro's arguments. He also tells us that the pig mothers would devour the offspring, which is completely different from our own behavior. He also points out that the animals follow their instinct, so we do not fault them for harming us, or damaging their others. He also points out there's a clear difference from the human abstinence of meat and the animal slavery being way more vague.
The battle is quite close here, it's difficult for me to tell who is winning; Con clearly tells a lot of clear differences between humans and animals, especially the "agency" idea. The animal's culture and instinct -- at least, implied here, not stated outright -- show we can't judge them by human standards. A very well done argument.
So from the get go I already have an idea how this is gonna go down; Oromagi does not excel in Philosophy or Morals, rather the nitty gritty annoying small stuff like semantics, so I have a bad feeling about this especially when it comes down to framework. Alright, let's see what happens.
Pro starts strong with an easy show that agriculture enslaves the creatures for human consumption. He admits current society seems to treat animals and humans differently, however, states that there is no true ethnical difference. Intelligence is not it, due to disability, same for rationality. Further stating that species may not perhaps be the solution, since if humans evolved entirely differently, we would be able to enslave ourselves. Thus he concludes since there is no true difference; we must consider the animal enslavement virtually the same as Human enslavement.
Con of course, uses the easy way out of course with the semantics of "another person", thus stating that the animals cannot possibly be slaves. In addition, the 13th amendment tells us that the punishment should be delivered for slavery, but no officials are refuting the idea of eating meat. He strongly states the slavery only applies to people, further by saying even if the ownership of animal was non-permissible, it would not be the same as the "human slavery". Con also blabs on a bit about loaded language, further saying that the slavery definition was too broad. Otherwise, it would be a tautology. A curious argument... though it misses the point of Pro's ideas. Let's keep going.
I do agree Con has a BoP to disprove, he kind of circled his way around it to put a bit of doubt. He didn't directly complain about your lack of biblical references, but he showed directly from bible that God has "contradictions" which I interpreted your final round to just say "just accept it", which is... lacking in my opinion.
I was kind of flipping back and forth, Con didn't make the strongest argument from Wiki where "oh, yeah, all we know is he's far beyond us. With infinite power, why not infinitely evil?"
Still, con asked a lot of clarifying questions. Might've been better off as a discussion since your case just stood there and he was trying to show God doesn't really answer his questions and you just say "he's beyond everything, you can't judge him". Which kind of shrugs it off. I don't really buy it since you didn't give any sources from Bible, you just kind of ... gave it as it is.
Of course, Pro thinks he is marching off to victory. He stresses that he just has to prove the ethically justness. He tells us that Con has not addressed the omnipotence and divine nature. Which, he admittedly has not. He also says the "totality of God behavior" has not been refuted, and that the PSA has to be heinous enough to override the factors he wrote. He also says Con missed the idea with popularity, he is merely saying that Christian viewpoint has to be understood. He arbitrarily extends that the Christian doctrine does not have to be coherent, but doesn't say why, probably since he thinks it's enough that "God is beyond us, so we don't have to question him". The issue here is that he depends on the inherent trust that there is already infinite trust in the God. He is essentially arguing that anything cannot be refuted, because God's nature already made him beyond any way we can judge him.
Con continues his idea of putting more doubt into Pro's ideas. He tells us that the untenability was shown, especially with inconsistent regarding judging alone versus judging collectively. He concludes about the idea of you repenting, with nothing to do about Adam and Eve.
Con's counter isn't crystal clear, however, Pro's case is tailored towards many assumptions, flowing along and implying that no matter how many contradictions or unclearness arrives, the Godly Divine nature cannot be refuted, and thus we have to place our trust. That's the idea I'm getting here. There's too many holes in the logic, in my opinion. You are basically already saying God is infinitely Good, therefore the action is infinitely Good. And that just doesn't work together in my opinion. I need more support from Pro, especially from scriptures or basic ideas that show we shouldn't care if God contradicts. Maybe he should say God's morality depends on context, so the personal repentance can work together with collective. I did not get this idea. Or maybe that, God's form is vague and thus the Lucifer Morningstar does not really matter. Either way, pro's ideas don't seem convincing as is.
[Personal Note/Advice: Con probably could have alluded to not knowing if God is infinitely Evil versus infinitely good, since Pro can only prove it was transcendental to humans; making the assumption that God was already divinely good]
Pro addresses God's omnipotence, first arguing that Con's talk about human free will vs predestination wasn't what bible teaches. In particular, there is compatibility -- he states all choices have to be under the "plan", hand waving away specifics. Well, he does say Man can choose the path, but God directs. In particular, God allows the sin, but doesn't tempt or entice. He also stresses the PSA doesn't have to be logical or coherent, but rather unjust. Alright. Anyways, God repeats the idea that the God's truths are beyond human, so there is no way to question them. (Seems rather circular, but I'll let it slide for now.)
Pro presents a new idea that Good needs Evil to oppose it, and that the God glorifying himself outweighs evil greatly. In addition, he dismisses the possibility that the deity is fully within Jesus. He also says the Original Sin was very misinterpreted: The parent kind were rejecting God, thus becoming judged in kind, ad representatives. He says the punishment matches the level of responsibility. Okay.
Con stresses that the Christians' support doesn't mean the idea is ethically tenable. The God in human form is an issue, since we don't really know what Jesus is, especially that, if he was God's playing a role, then it would have no meaning. He further suggests passages talking about Lucifer possibly being Jesus. Adding on that all you have to do is ask for forgiveness and proof, thus contradicting the need for Jesus to sacrifice himself. Finally, he delivers quite a few lines of passage telling us that we are judged individually, thus the collective sacrifice done by Jesus seems contradictory.
I know next to nothing about the morality of religion, so I'd say I'm one of the most unbiased folks to vote on this.
Pro opens up with saying about God being invariable -- lying beyond human nature. This makes sense, if God was transcendent, he can't be judged by human standards. Next, he uses Deontology, thinking about the Duty to treat others. Carlson's quote states, Thus based on this, the forgiveness, salvation are all possible, were because another took them unjustly. The overall God behavior seemed justified based on the judge/victim stance. Jesus's resurrection further highlighted the result of being rewarded for his sacrifice.
Pro follows by saying the threshold of deontology seemed ambiguous. He talks about how sin's result is death, and that the collective sin was infinite injustice, thus there must have been atonement. (I think. Pro is losing me a bit here.)
Con's case is a bit clearer. He opens up by listing the ideas he wants to prove: The horrid son-suicide arrangement unjust since God's omniscience was the foreground for the arrangement, and that the idea was sadistic and immoral. He argues that since God knew the exact nature of the soul, he was responsible for all the sins. In particular, the God's suicide seemed to encourage suicide type of situation. He frames the atonement as apology for screw up. Going back to Adam and Eve's first sin, though asking questions about Jesus's confusing upbringing. Especially if he was human or not.
if you make it a week I can accept now. I know I'll be busy on thurs/fri and my computer sucks without remote keyboard so I'd have to wait till next weekend.
I re-read the 95% statistic and realized there were multiple mentions of it in different contexts, which gave quite a bit of confusion. I recommend the debaters try to clarify this better next time, as I thought Pro contradicted himself.
Looking through the thread of the most relevant arguments, pro begins with fee.org article stating about the thousands of homes being burned, to which con argues the White supremacists were the true cause. Plus the violence being directed against BLM most of the time. Pro repeats that the 2,000 officers caused by the riots, with the 6,000 murder rate raise. He also supports with dw.com that the BLM ironically burned down black peoples' families, quite ironic overall.
Con also uses the statistic to draw away using the idea that the 93% overall were not violent, and that the counter-protests were seemingly more likely to be violent overall. Pro's stat was then saying the 95% were *involved in the riots* (thus causing the burning to occur). He further says that the white supremacists only caused a handful of the riots. Con's counter is that the Minneapolis example is weak since Wikipedia notes the disorganized crowds, which weakens that particular argument. While Pro proved that the BLM violent riots composed of 95% of riots, he had to find another way to prove it was the BLM protestors who caused the issues.
The issue is Pro has two separate arguments, one stating that there were violent riots (with unknown damage), since the original source was linked specifically to the Minnesota idea. However, he pulls an overall statistic and tries to cover up Con's nit picking by stating the overall number. This debate is difficult to decide since the ACLEU number is only loosely related to the Minnesota incident. The lack of cause-and relation makes it hard to decide who is correct and who is incorrect. While Con had a strong number with 3.7% of events only causing violence, the proportion is not really done well, as Pro still has the financial numbers. Con focuses on irrelevant numbers. So in the end I think it's harder to decide who wins. (to be updated)
Final round time! I don't really care about Conduct; that's just both debaters doing their classic arguments and getting into the groove of being lazy. I don't really want to award that way since neither really "violated rules" too heavily.
Pro continues saying:
- the 95% of violence was due to BLM Activists (ignoring the ACLED fact from Con.... he quoted directly from the site, so I don't know what pro is doing here). The fact is that the website itself says 95% involve peaceful protestors, so pro is just warping the statistics here...
- Pro then repeats the 1~2 billion dollars of damage, which Con admittedly didn't address too properly.
- Pro continues saying that the only way to judge worse event would be taking more lives and harming more people.
- Pro points back to the thousands of businesses looted, torched or vandalized.
- Pro continues that 99.7% of protestors were peaceful, which perhaps is a superior number compared to the 95% peaceful from BLM, though he could have just compared it this way instead...
- Pro repeats that con dropped the 6~19 deaths, and says that the financial damage was still much worse overall.
-Con goes back to the truth standard, but it's really hard to see *how* important this point is. Still, pro has agreement with constitutionality, so I suppose the shared point makes it somewhat relevant here.
- Con addresses the youtube video of the burning building, though ignores the larger number of thousands of business. He does however address it by saying the opportunist crowd caused destruction, with contradictory motives. So while the news article attributed to BLM direct caused, Con argues (although slightly late) that the demonstrators couldn't be linked to BLM itself.
- Con repeats that the 850 being arrested, while the BLM only had a very very few percent getting federal crime, which is quite impressive. A little late, but still good point.
- Con unnecessarily spends a bit too long talking about Jorge committing no crimes and Sean surrendering, though it helps a little bit... I suppose.
- Con makes more comparisons with rhetorical questions trying to demonstrate pure amount of deaths isn't really the measurement. While Pro has little to go on for support, Con also has very little to say why the constitutionality idea would result in something "worse" overall.
Conclusion
Honestly I have not a lot to go on. Con tries to blanket statement rely on "the truth" fighting which makes me wonder why he said it in this manner. If he mentioned a word or two about how the constitution is the basic trust of America, that the president has to enforce it, and perhaps linked it to the lie by the president himself, which inevitably caused impeachment (even if it was not executed), there could be some logic in there. But there is too much to jump the logic so I am not sure why something "atrocious in nature" alone could be proved to be "worse of", since Con has not proved why supporting the constitution along with Truth is so important. On the other hand, while Pro also has little bit, the general impacts debate structure is what I'm more used to, and calculates the basic destruction by the BLM community.
So who wins in the end? Pro had misread his source and repeatedly attributed the 95% to the BLM, despite it telling the opposite. He had the 2$ billion dollars of damage, but Con made it ambiguous enough whether the rioters caused it or the anti-rioters did it -- especially with his support. Con had about 800+ people arrested, which seemed to be a better number than whatever vagueness Pro had. Due to Pro misrepresenting numbers and being somewhat weak in his support, I believe Con holds a slight edge, though more detail on the Constitutionality would have been more impactful than arguing over burden of proof. I don't think giving BoP to Pro would've given Con the win more compared to Current situation.
I had the impression your round 1 was supposed to mean Truth was more important to uphold than results, due to ambiguity in your statement. It's hard to parse since there is no support for why supporting the constitution alone could outweigh the Pro impacts (if Pro impacts held). If you defeated Pro's impacts, there's no need to talk about principles either, though I guess you could add it as a cherry on top.
I... am not sure doing the source embedding is not allowed, as shortening links would have also saved space. Non factor for me.
Also yeah, Oromagi constantly tries to shift BoP even when debate rules state otherwise... I don't see how pro would have sole or main bop, so that doesn't work in Con's favor.
Anyways...
- Pro continues that Fighting can still result in more devastating results, which is the prime point of his idea.
- He trails onto Afghanistan's war being unreasonable despite having good origin, due to millions of deaths and horrid destruction. Alright, I can buy that.
- Pro states the BLM riots were far too violent, though avoids con's point that most of them were not that violent.
- Pro repeats the insured damage and how the arson was damaging, and the 800 people storming the capitol was an insignificant proportion compared to the BLM numbers.
- Pro continues by saying the 88% BLM activists perpetrated/caused the damage, which means his impacts still stand.
- Pro tries to clarify the deaths by saying the BLM would still attribute to the deaths, thus cannot be negated.
- Pro repeats 2,000 officers injured and increase in crime.
-Pro follows by saying difficulty to develop infrastructure.
- Pro says it is very common to rioters to burn down minorities' homes
Con continues saying that the BLM results should be separated from the White supremacism (since they were against BLM, and thus shouldn't be grouped together). I think I can buy this too, though it's ambiguous whether we should count the protestors potentially being harmed here.
Anyways. Con goes off a bit tangent by saying Iraq War was based off of lies and even worse with more american soldiers dying. Well, this honestly doesn't help his principle based case, since he is going off of how many people dying, so... I still don't see a framework why to accept principles over results. Which is unfortunate.
Con refutes the 800 number by saying more than 2,000 had attacked the capitol building, and continues repeating the Harvard study by saying property damage only occurred at 3% of events and violence even less. Con also says that American supported BLM, while condemned Jan 6th, which is a nice find.
Con also refutes the ACLED source by saying the 93% of demonstrations show no violence or destruction. The evidence stated in there refutes Pro's own cases, which is no good. Con also points out the people *against* BLM were the primary exploration of Pro's case, which is not really caused by BLM protests (rather they were against protests).
Funny realization, Oromagi hasn't actually had to conduct many impact based ideas versus principle so this one is ... interesting to say the least.
Pro lists:
- 1~2$ billion insured damage, only occurred in two weeks, making the time-scale pretty tough to beat
- thousands of buildings burned or damage, or vandalized businesses
- American families lost their sources of income
- Under construction house were set ablaze, perpetuating the poverty (hard to differentiate from previous point)
- At least six people killed, 400 cops from NYPD hurt, 2,000 officers nationwide
- Homicides rose significantly, with 6,000 extra deaths nationwide
And finally ending with capitol riot only costing 1.5$ million to the US Capitol Building. So far looking good.
- Con starts by saying the riots were based off of Trump's false claim, thus being worse purely off of the basic idea of the riot.
- followed by trying to overcome the US Constitution
- Con says 1,000+ tried to overturn the election result, while turning pro's points against him by saying the Floyd murder was protesting in a justified manner.
- Con says only the Umbrella Man and Ivan Hunter with specific cherry picks caused the problems.
- Con's further 19 death picks seem inconsequential in the big picture, so let's move onto the 7,000 protest study. Con states the violence were low, and most were against protestors.
- Con argues Pro's ideas were vague since there was no way to prove the deaths directly related/caused by protesters themselves, making it difficult to due so
- Con also says Impact of COVID may have inflated numbers with economic assessment (this doesn't unset the insured damage point, however)
Con hasn't said why principle is more important than results; if someone claims to lawfully do something but ends up killing 100 innocents, while someone merely sets off to unlawfully do something, yet achieves nothing, I am not convinced Con's ideas are to be taken at face value. Let's see what pro says... (TBU)
Even though the official site tells you not to endorse criminal activity, this is very loosely enforced as many debates concern illegal activity, such as banning abortion or legalizing euthanization.
I can try giving commentary. As I am a left winger and side with the impeachment of Trump, I believe I would have the least amount of bias towards Pro.
Round 3’s: oromagi repeats every singular point he made before without any significant changes. He’s clearly winning on the MEEP side, though I’m a bit saddened to see whiteflame only informed of his crucial weakness in the final round. As We both notice, the connection is only apparent on a very fundamental level. It’s unfortunate but I couldn’t see anything that connected MEEP to being an immutable rule set, especially since the topic concerned supervising the election. No matter how I read through the arguments I can’t find a way to justify pro’s ideas. The inherent nature was also in the way they look over the MEEP, in other words con bringing up the moderation overview was a key point to disprove the debate resolution. The adaptability was the most crucial because the election “supervision” at heart is meant for the people in overall retrospect. So therefore the “violation of binding guideline” is a very vague idea with almost no repurcussion on pro. He can only tell us that moderators were untrustworthy but made up for it with the results of the election. Hence, I give my vote to con.
Con r2: whiteflame retains his general over view, leaving me to wonder about the holes with the two week of seeming negligence. It would really help, ironically, in my opinion, to show countering examples where the other moderators had done something to excuse for the time gap. Just in case he couldn’t win this argument.
But okay, whiteflame repeats that because it’s the first time, you can’t accept “binding for binding” sake. I don’t see a clear answer to oromagi’s suggestion of beginning on 1st and explaining problems early, however whiteflame did tell us that the moderators would have done a poor job due to scheduling. Therefore the conclusion would be only Supa had done poorly, and even then he had admitted the errors. The resulting problem with voter or candidates is then vague as whiteflame argues: pro is very ambiguous, as pro merely has the philosophy of “neglect” to rely on rather than a true level of “neglect”. Since con explained there was clear attention paid to ban airmax goon as well as apology for lack of attention, this contradicts pros claim of negligence.
Pro r2: oromagi fights back with more resolute and solid language. He shows that MEEP was said to be binding, adding on that the final schedule could be predicted. Combined with the two weeks of inactivity, the negligence was clear. Though supa had taken accountability, it was a bit late and a double edged sword. The air max goon situation. Is a bit more unclear to me especially if the account owner was punished, but pro seems to be saying they didn’t stop the fradulent activity despite it being blatant and obvious. I can buy pros argument and once again he seems winning… for now.
Con r1: on the other hand whiteflame lays out a pretty clear and understandable counter note, showing pro had an assumption that what was written is binding. As I suspected he would state, because the platform is under development it’s still up in the air about precise times; therefore one month off is not a problem, especially as whiteflame shows the participants had plenty of time to respond. Next, the users who had violated the issue had been banned. So things are looking bad for oromagi here but I have faith in him. Let’s see what he says.
I typed this on my phone as I have free time though I have to keep this concise or else it will take eternity.
Round 1 pro opens with a simple but interesting list of violations. Moderation had missed the dates by a month (though how severe this is for debate art, I have no Clue). So it’s really about intuitive grasping how negative this is with regards to enforcing election. I’ll buy this with a grain of salt, but I really feel it’s hard to sympathize since there is no standards and so I don’t know how bad being late by one month actually is. There is however clear showing of banned accounts that were poorly managed, and thus pro gains reasonable grounds for his case. Now to go to con.
RFD
Since most abortion debates are about the same, I’ll keep this short.
Pro uses the usual ideas: science says life starts at conception, so we’re killing a human being. Even if they were in a coma, it’s unjustified to kill them. You know the gist. (Feedback: All the other things are not necessary since it’s not a mothers inaction that leads to the child’s death in this case.) Anyways, very verbose but better safe than sorry.
Con goes along with the standard line of reasoning too: unreasonably expecting women to financially support, and that the fetus has pre consciousness (though, fails to give any convincing support why this should be brought over pros ideas).
Pro strengthens his arguments by pointing out the potential for consciousness is what produces the human value of life. However, Pro doesn’t weigh whether it’s acceptable to force a woman to raise a child in an extremely difficult environment full of suffering. He merely says it’s unjust to kill regardless of future reasons and plants his feet there.
Con stacks on economic benefits from legalizing abortion, but doesn’t really state this importance since I don’t know how to weigh lives lost against economics (if pro wins his main argument). Con gives a better analogy pointing out (essentially) a construction project barely in development, despite having potential, wouldn’t count as destroying a full completed building. Feedback: This is a little bit better, but he fails to go the usual pro choice step of pointing out that the personhood should then approach only when the fetus is actually born (or perhaps even after the third trimester, some argue).
Pro goes in circles for a little bit since it’s not clear why mere potential can cause the human life’s value. However, it does seem he means eventually the fetus will develop which means it has the value of a human life.
Con tries a desperado last move where the women who undergo illegal abortions is extremely dangerous, but this point comes in very late so I am not sure I should include this or not.
In the end I think Pro wins. Cons argument was all over the place and not as clear as I’ve seen Pro choice make it. He has to make things clearer and point out the absurdity of potential being equivalent to a human life. For example, I’ve seen people bring up the fact that sex itself has potential for human life, but condoms reduce the possibility by 99% — would that be murder, is an excellent question to force pro to make their argument more precise. Pro did well with his argument — he pointed out it wasn’t sure what was going on with the fetus, and was uncontested with his ideas. Con also failed to talk of the woman’s liberty which may contribute to the pro choice decision by a large margin. Hence, con fails.
I guess we’ll have to see
Can you be more specific about what "absurdity" means?
Man that’s unfortunate. Guess I better solidify my definition some more
the issue is that I want to focus on the "systemic" (relating to system), and people bring attention to the "grab of power" part and force it to require a Law in place, completely misinterpret the argument despite it having seven supports. clearly that's not going to work against the conspiracy folks.
ThoughtCo gets too excited and directly mentions Law as a part of the Systemic Racism at the very end, but it's not any explicit law that's making the Racism Systemic. Opponents hound on the single word "Law" to try to single handedly bring down the case, and that's just not favorable.
I’m trying to summarize it for disbelievers, since if it’s too complex they’ll ask me to prove all seven different composing parts the article mentions. If 20 pages of research couldn’t convince them, I think it’s more of an issue that I couldn’t make the framework simpler and easier to argue.
F1. https://www.today.com/tmrw/what-systemic-racism-t207878
GAP1. https://v.gd/racewealthgap
GAP2.https://heller.brandeis.edu/iere/pdfs/racial-wealth-equity/racial-wealth-gap/roots-widening-racial-wealth-gap.pdf
GAP3. narrowthegap.org/images/documents/Wealth-Gap---FINAL-COMPLETE-REPORT.pdf
GAP4. fee.org/articles/statistical-disparities-among-groups-are-not-proof-of-discrimination/
GAP5. Chachere, B. P. (1983). The economics of Thomas Sowell: A critique of markets and minorities. The Review of Black Political Economy, 12(2), 163-177.
SUM1. nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMms2025396
SUM2. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1948550617751583
SUM3. raliance.org/6-companies-taking-action-to-confront-systemic-racism/
RFD decision
Okay so who won? We can probably just dismiss r5 since nothing really happened there. R1 and R2 is probably most important. Pro wins the Trinity point contradiction as Con concedes it, that's easy. He says the bible has too many errors and contradictions, which Con didn't address, so Pro wins that too. He also wins the point about eye for and eye and young women being taken, since Con did not address those. Alright. That seems somewhat significant. Which points did Con win?
Con tells us that the Allah's wrath can be used for killing and death arbitrarily, though doesn't properly address the idea that Allah himself is the one doing it. This argument is shaky. Con does point out with help from the article that they are not tolerant towards minority groups or other religions. He is winning in the real world argument practically speaking. But I do not know how heavy to weigh this argument since he didn't suggest how important this was. Okay. That's fine. Con spends a lot of paragraphs saying the "deceiver" makes things confusing especially with Shaitan. However, Pro addresses this properly telling us that the context matters, and Con didn't really address if the new context got rid of "deceiver". I am not sure if Pro's ignorance of Honor killing is Genuine mistake, or an attempt to bypass the argument. Con definitely wins that argument.
Okay, it's a surprisingly close call. Pro has definitive Contradictions and advocate of violence for Bible (though didn't address the avoidance to fall for temptation). He also has the trinity being confusing, and that Allah was not necessarily a Deceiver.
What's left is Con's real world impacts, especially in the killing of others who don't agree with them, plus the honor killings. Honestly, he probably should've gone with the actual "how does the religion's people act" argument in the first place. Since meaning and interpretation doesn't match up with person's actions. I buy that the Muslim people *with* evidence from passages are encouraged to enact "allah's wrath". Since the real examples do show this.
I can understand what Pro means, but he needs more to explain why the Muslims may be misguided and a poor representation of Islam in general. Perhaps showing the Christian side of things could help. Pro got too entangled up trying to explain his solidity beliefs and appealing to "who is right, who is wrong", while forgetting about what the Christianity contradiction means. He could have argued that it was so confusing and impossible to resolve, people lose faith in Christianity and that is just untenable, thus possibly losing to even a morally unjust Islamic group of persons. He could also point out that people misinterpret, perhaps expanding the Deceiver point and tell us that the Con's examples are very extreme.
The winner is Con.
RFD continued
Pro gets a bit annoyed and saying that Islam is peaceful, repeating that the religion is not following violence since there is not as much resulting actions in real life. He also tells us that the verses are related to War, though I am not sure what that means. He repeats points that con hasn't addressed, with the eye for eye and keeping young girls to themselves. He knows Con is pointing out society thinking is different all the time, but Islam establishes solid rules with no murder or rape. Pro's argument gets a little muddy here, but he does conclude that Muslims get rewards for not doing sins or doing rewards, while arguing that the bible doesn't have same meaning passages.
Con improves his arguments by telling us that the Muslims are not religiously tolerant. He also tells that one to deem a hypocrite they can be furious and use "allah's wrath" as blind justification. Thus the murder and war would indeed be justified. He continues by saying the sinning violently to bring others to Islam would still teach love and peace somehow. He warns us that the "state of war" is constant, somehow.
Pro argues that the cursing is done by Allah himself and not the person following Allah. He also says the violently forcing people into Muslim would still be sinning, so Con's argument wouldn't apply. He also says there is sinning except in wars, and then blindly says that the society itself has no respect and no conscious. However, he does say the Muslims did give women rights... this is starting to feel like it is deviating from the debate a little, but okay.
Con comes back with evidence a little late to outweigh Pro's showing of the "rape the young girl" quote from Bible, arguing that it took quite a bit to get rid of killing for being victim of rapes. He argues that Muhammad inherently used compulsion and terror, and that they were blackmailing or slaughtering those that refused. (Uhh... evidence please? This argument's kind of new...)
Pro comes back and rambles on about how he does not want to change his belief, for ... whatever reason, it's unclear. He tells us that it does however give a firm foundation and also happiness. He also randomly says some various topics go against Christianity, but it's really too late for that now. He merely dismisses Muhammad's killing as saying it was perfect. Well, there's really no support either for this. He does however repeat the Bible contradictions, which are indeed questionable and confusing.
Con leaves a final parting shot in trying to show "1 contradiction in Quran", which I refuse as his burden of proof, since this is obviously absurd and just a confident statement from Pro. Common sense feels like he would still have to show the overall topic which is Islam vs Christianity.
RFD
This debate is a comparison of two religions that are vastly different... ho boy here we go.
So Pro attacks Christianity first, stating that Jesus being God was absurd, especially if God worships God and seems absurd, especially if God is not a man. And if Jesus is a part of God yet can do nothing, that is self contradictory. He further asks who wrote the gospels, and the holy book has too many contradictions and errors. He establishes his confidence in asking Con to find one error in the Quran, then lists a few bible errors, but doesn't tell us how there are errors here. He concludes with the ideas that Quran has never been changed or significant errors.
Con concedes the part regarding the trinity, but brings attention to Allah. He tells us that Allah has been "Great deceiver" especially with quotes from Quran, then brings the ideas that Allah is brutal and sadistic, especially in the quote "allah is severe in requiting". He explains that Allah is the one to fear and Shaitan offers the same thing, so there is no significant difference between the enemy and allah. He continues by telling us Islan is about the surrender, especially the men in charge of women, instilling fear, and continues how the punishment of dropping Muslim faith is very severe. He should have done more analysis, but it's okay. The article is quoted as the Muslim community has even silenced ex-Muslims, while Christianity has had no such examples... yet. ( I commend con's bravery for doing this, as Christians do have... a history of terrible campaigns.)
Pro Counters that Allah is a planner, taking the positive meaning with ambiguous meaning of "mkr". He argues that the context doesn't work since it has to have a negative meaning after it. He argues that Con is changing the meaning of words, especially with mistranslation, as it donates to ex Muslims. Hmm. He then points out the Lord has been Deceiving as well, with a few quotes, and continues that the people being scared is fine as he decides all the heaven or hell. There are also quotes for fearing the God in the Bible too, so it is not unique to Muslims. Pro also points out the Christianity's lack of information and heavy errors are severe. He also points out the "rape young women" quote from 31:17, but merely dismisses Muhammad doing a similar thing (according to Con) due to already covering the reasons in other debates. (Well... could you summarize these reasons please? Haha.) He also completely ignores the real world impacts of Muslim community...
Con goes back to being somewhat lazy, telling you that the Allah god does encourage being brutal and savage, while the bible had nothing encouraging severe violence. He continues that the Quran has a war encouraging people murdering those in God's name, and that the Quran is too inflexible, and that Pro didn't significantly show bible changes. Con also tells us that Bible has shown not to give into temptation, while islam is silent on this.
To be continued
RFD: You know, I must have confused my notes when I wrote down Con had the analysis argument be more thorough, I thought he had that but that might have been in the comments. The only argument he gave was being insightful with Math versus Rational Madman, though he more or less tries to make the debate showcase itself, rather than try to explain exactly why it shows he's "Good". In any case, the rest of my analysis stands, and I'm not completely sure con has enough evidence here to win.
pro gives a few good arguments about Con failing to defeat any one significant and lists examples of Whiteflame, Bones, etc. as truly good debaters. Con's refutation isn't super convincing in regards to raising himself above the status quo. He tried to show his enemy was serious and good in the fetus USD debate, but there is a mere assertion so I can’t really buy it just like that. The other debates also seemed like weak assertions since he’s just tossing out ideas with very little refutation on how his enemies usually forfeit or have no good win record. His source of welcoming noobs to the site seems irrelevant to noob sniping. So I do not accept that argument. If Con didn't take BOP, I probably would've left a tie or even Con win.
Barney, I think the issue is your vote received a lot of attention and it felt you didn’t really have a lot of good justification for it (especially for a moderator). You might think or know in your heart something that we can’t see, but you have to tell us. I myself am quite confused too. Could you go into more detail what your vote means?
I don’t even know what’s going on here. If this was oromagi with the same topic he might’ve stood a chance.
I don’t really understand Barney’s first vote with sources too, and the second one isn’t much better. I didn’t notice any severe errors with conduct, but again I’m a pretty logical guy.
RFD comments.
I have voted. You can ask any questions but I felt it was already won by round 3. Pro was wandering in circles trying to detail and bicker about how the Votes cannot even miss a simple line of zip code (which I am sure, other elections have missed out on. Though Con did not make that argument, so whatever). And also trying to accuse the lobbying as conspiracy to commit the crime and perhaps even bribe the officials, but there was no such evidence from Time Magazine. What a crazy debate from Pro.
The issue is Mr. Chris has a very straightforward assuming approach and you have your own refusal approach. I think whiteflame didn’t see how your questions directly tackled the framework and so it’s difficult to win by his standards. I’m a little more generous and I know how moral frameworks usually work, so I thought you did an alright job. But it could really go either way. If I was arguing con and you offered me this argument I would not commit to it as written.
I agree, however Whiteflame is extremely strict about these type of debate topics so I can see how he chose con, especially since oromagi is the type to think “Aha the debate is set in stone”. However Your display was the precise implication. The title was deceptive (Ex “a fetus is a person” complicated into the idea that the fetus has the personhood rights). I think a less trapping/strict title could have given more leeway, but also perhaps Oromagi would not have accepted. Since there is little way his style can win a debate as incredibly complex as abortion.
If I can’t prove pro, I think basically nobody can prove pro. I might be one of the best researched persons regarding systemic racism on here haha. Not trying to brag too much, just saying. XD
I am not 100% convinced on Barney's giving sources and conduct, but I do agree argument could have really gone either way. Pro was compelling in a different way from Con.
RFD 3
Pro continues digging into the personhood idea. He tells us about the abortion argument, and that the debate means there is unclear standard for personhood. He also repeats the idea of no distinction, and telling us that the humans can also do bad things. Such as oppressing racial groups, engineering holocaust, so on and so forth. So the Animal devouring baby being seen as somewhat usual by humans doesn't really cause a noticeable difference with level of agency.
Con continues adding on countless semantic arguments, but doesn't really make an argument compared to Abortion's standard for personhood. I think Con is just missing the point that the entire point is that the animals can/should be treated as persons, by pro's argument. That our standard should not be different because there is no true different of persons, thus giving animals "personhood" as moral agents.
If Con could just show the crucial source showing Animals are too instinctual to clearly think about their actions, he might have won the debate. But the end is very blurry. Con's best arguments showed that we treat animals kinder than we treat humans -- allowing them to eat their offspring, and attack us, while preventing us from attacking them or eating our own offspring. But Pro seems to be implying the animals' instincts might be mistakes too. Just as we kill each other and cause crimes, there doesn't seem to be an issue with their violent or immoral-by-human standards. I think Con forgot to make the case, that some things were allowable by animals big scale, while we mostly refute the conflicts -- or have a high cooperation ability. Our moral high ground, is what I believe Con was trying to show. Just one or two crucial sentences, and Con might have had it.
The winner is PRO.
RFD 2
Pro cleverly circumvents his own defeat by talking more closely about personhood rather than mere persons. He talks about that the farm animals are same as entities that have self determination. He also said that the humans were not considered persons, but should still be persons -- thus having ethical consequences when doing bad things to them. An excellent argument. He also points out that animal farming isn't essential, making it unnecessary, and also talks about con's popularity fallacy.
Con repeats on his semantic arguments, talking about "persuasive definition" which is supposed to be emotional instead. He points out that animals do not have the same autonomy to accord persons, and the Wikipedia definition of personhood clearly goes against pro's arguments. He also tells us that the pig mothers would devour the offspring, which is completely different from our own behavior. He also points out that the animals follow their instinct, so we do not fault them for harming us, or damaging their others. He also points out there's a clear difference from the human abstinence of meat and the animal slavery being way more vague.
The battle is quite close here, it's difficult for me to tell who is winning; Con clearly tells a lot of clear differences between humans and animals, especially the "agency" idea. The animal's culture and instinct -- at least, implied here, not stated outright -- show we can't judge them by human standards. A very well done argument.
RFD
So from the get go I already have an idea how this is gonna go down; Oromagi does not excel in Philosophy or Morals, rather the nitty gritty annoying small stuff like semantics, so I have a bad feeling about this especially when it comes down to framework. Alright, let's see what happens.
Pro starts strong with an easy show that agriculture enslaves the creatures for human consumption. He admits current society seems to treat animals and humans differently, however, states that there is no true ethnical difference. Intelligence is not it, due to disability, same for rationality. Further stating that species may not perhaps be the solution, since if humans evolved entirely differently, we would be able to enslave ourselves. Thus he concludes since there is no true difference; we must consider the animal enslavement virtually the same as Human enslavement.
Con of course, uses the easy way out of course with the semantics of "another person", thus stating that the animals cannot possibly be slaves. In addition, the 13th amendment tells us that the punishment should be delivered for slavery, but no officials are refuting the idea of eating meat. He strongly states the slavery only applies to people, further by saying even if the ownership of animal was non-permissible, it would not be the same as the "human slavery". Con also blabs on a bit about loaded language, further saying that the slavery definition was too broad. Otherwise, it would be a tautology. A curious argument... though it misses the point of Pro's ideas. Let's keep going.
Well why don’t we have a debate over it? We could get 30000 characters so that I can show you my entire research…
Oh we’ll see about that. You’d have to disprove a few thousand words and about a hundred different studies to disprove that…
I do agree Con has a BoP to disprove, he kind of circled his way around it to put a bit of doubt. He didn't directly complain about your lack of biblical references, but he showed directly from bible that God has "contradictions" which I interpreted your final round to just say "just accept it", which is... lacking in my opinion.
I was kind of flipping back and forth, Con didn't make the strongest argument from Wiki where "oh, yeah, all we know is he's far beyond us. With infinite power, why not infinitely evil?"
Still, con asked a lot of clarifying questions. Might've been better off as a discussion since your case just stood there and he was trying to show God doesn't really answer his questions and you just say "he's beyond everything, you can't judge him". Which kind of shrugs it off. I don't really buy it since you didn't give any sources from Bible, you just kind of ... gave it as it is.
will you restart this debate once the time expires? If no, can you copy paste the description to me? I want to start this as Pro when I get a chance.
RFD pt 3.
Of course, Pro thinks he is marching off to victory. He stresses that he just has to prove the ethically justness. He tells us that Con has not addressed the omnipotence and divine nature. Which, he admittedly has not. He also says the "totality of God behavior" has not been refuted, and that the PSA has to be heinous enough to override the factors he wrote. He also says Con missed the idea with popularity, he is merely saying that Christian viewpoint has to be understood. He arbitrarily extends that the Christian doctrine does not have to be coherent, but doesn't say why, probably since he thinks it's enough that "God is beyond us, so we don't have to question him". The issue here is that he depends on the inherent trust that there is already infinite trust in the God. He is essentially arguing that anything cannot be refuted, because God's nature already made him beyond any way we can judge him.
Con continues his idea of putting more doubt into Pro's ideas. He tells us that the untenability was shown, especially with inconsistent regarding judging alone versus judging collectively. He concludes about the idea of you repenting, with nothing to do about Adam and Eve.
Con's counter isn't crystal clear, however, Pro's case is tailored towards many assumptions, flowing along and implying that no matter how many contradictions or unclearness arrives, the Godly Divine nature cannot be refuted, and thus we have to place our trust. That's the idea I'm getting here. There's too many holes in the logic, in my opinion. You are basically already saying God is infinitely Good, therefore the action is infinitely Good. And that just doesn't work together in my opinion. I need more support from Pro, especially from scriptures or basic ideas that show we shouldn't care if God contradicts. Maybe he should say God's morality depends on context, so the personal repentance can work together with collective. I did not get this idea. Or maybe that, God's form is vague and thus the Lucifer Morningstar does not really matter. Either way, pro's ideas don't seem convincing as is.
[Personal Note/Advice: Con probably could have alluded to not knowing if God is infinitely Evil versus infinitely good, since Pro can only prove it was transcendental to humans; making the assumption that God was already divinely good]
RFD pt. 2
Pro addresses God's omnipotence, first arguing that Con's talk about human free will vs predestination wasn't what bible teaches. In particular, there is compatibility -- he states all choices have to be under the "plan", hand waving away specifics. Well, he does say Man can choose the path, but God directs. In particular, God allows the sin, but doesn't tempt or entice. He also stresses the PSA doesn't have to be logical or coherent, but rather unjust. Alright. Anyways, God repeats the idea that the God's truths are beyond human, so there is no way to question them. (Seems rather circular, but I'll let it slide for now.)
Pro presents a new idea that Good needs Evil to oppose it, and that the God glorifying himself outweighs evil greatly. In addition, he dismisses the possibility that the deity is fully within Jesus. He also says the Original Sin was very misinterpreted: The parent kind were rejecting God, thus becoming judged in kind, ad representatives. He says the punishment matches the level of responsibility. Okay.
Con stresses that the Christians' support doesn't mean the idea is ethically tenable. The God in human form is an issue, since we don't really know what Jesus is, especially that, if he was God's playing a role, then it would have no meaning. He further suggests passages talking about Lucifer possibly being Jesus. Adding on that all you have to do is ask for forgiveness and proof, thus contradicting the need for Jesus to sacrifice himself. Finally, he delivers quite a few lines of passage telling us that we are judged individually, thus the collective sacrifice done by Jesus seems contradictory.
Nice work! Let's see the final round...
RFD pt. 1
I know next to nothing about the morality of religion, so I'd say I'm one of the most unbiased folks to vote on this.
Pro opens up with saying about God being invariable -- lying beyond human nature. This makes sense, if God was transcendent, he can't be judged by human standards. Next, he uses Deontology, thinking about the Duty to treat others. Carlson's quote states, Thus based on this, the forgiveness, salvation are all possible, were because another took them unjustly. The overall God behavior seemed justified based on the judge/victim stance. Jesus's resurrection further highlighted the result of being rewarded for his sacrifice.
Pro follows by saying the threshold of deontology seemed ambiguous. He talks about how sin's result is death, and that the collective sin was infinite injustice, thus there must have been atonement. (I think. Pro is losing me a bit here.)
Con's case is a bit clearer. He opens up by listing the ideas he wants to prove: The horrid son-suicide arrangement unjust since God's omniscience was the foreground for the arrangement, and that the idea was sadistic and immoral. He argues that since God knew the exact nature of the soul, he was responsible for all the sins. In particular, the God's suicide seemed to encourage suicide type of situation. He frames the atonement as apology for screw up. Going back to Adam and Eve's first sin, though asking questions about Jesus's confusing upbringing. Especially if he was human or not.
Alright, let's go to round 2.
if you make it a week I can accept now. I know I'll be busy on thurs/fri and my computer sucks without remote keyboard so I'd have to wait till next weekend.
please do, I'm excited to get back into debating after the long haitus.
can you make argument time 3 days or even a week? School's got me busy these days...
are you going to use Thomas Howell?
While your vote makes sense argument wise, I don’t see why the conduct and sources portion is justified for cons side…
Further Analysis
I re-read the 95% statistic and realized there were multiple mentions of it in different contexts, which gave quite a bit of confusion. I recommend the debaters try to clarify this better next time, as I thought Pro contradicted himself.
Looking through the thread of the most relevant arguments, pro begins with fee.org article stating about the thousands of homes being burned, to which con argues the White supremacists were the true cause. Plus the violence being directed against BLM most of the time. Pro repeats that the 2,000 officers caused by the riots, with the 6,000 murder rate raise. He also supports with dw.com that the BLM ironically burned down black peoples' families, quite ironic overall.
Con also uses the statistic to draw away using the idea that the 93% overall were not violent, and that the counter-protests were seemingly more likely to be violent overall. Pro's stat was then saying the 95% were *involved in the riots* (thus causing the burning to occur). He further says that the white supremacists only caused a handful of the riots. Con's counter is that the Minneapolis example is weak since Wikipedia notes the disorganized crowds, which weakens that particular argument. While Pro proved that the BLM violent riots composed of 95% of riots, he had to find another way to prove it was the BLM protestors who caused the issues.
The issue is Pro has two separate arguments, one stating that there were violent riots (with unknown damage), since the original source was linked specifically to the Minnesota idea. However, he pulls an overall statistic and tries to cover up Con's nit picking by stating the overall number. This debate is difficult to decide since the ACLEU number is only loosely related to the Minnesota incident. The lack of cause-and relation makes it hard to decide who is correct and who is incorrect. While Con had a strong number with 3.7% of events only causing violence, the proportion is not really done well, as Pro still has the financial numbers. Con focuses on irrelevant numbers. So in the end I think it's harder to decide who wins. (to be updated)
RFD 3
Final round time! I don't really care about Conduct; that's just both debaters doing their classic arguments and getting into the groove of being lazy. I don't really want to award that way since neither really "violated rules" too heavily.
Pro continues saying:
- the 95% of violence was due to BLM Activists (ignoring the ACLED fact from Con.... he quoted directly from the site, so I don't know what pro is doing here). The fact is that the website itself says 95% involve peaceful protestors, so pro is just warping the statistics here...
- Pro then repeats the 1~2 billion dollars of damage, which Con admittedly didn't address too properly.
- Pro continues saying that the only way to judge worse event would be taking more lives and harming more people.
- Pro points back to the thousands of businesses looted, torched or vandalized.
- Pro continues that 99.7% of protestors were peaceful, which perhaps is a superior number compared to the 95% peaceful from BLM, though he could have just compared it this way instead...
- Pro repeats that con dropped the 6~19 deaths, and says that the financial damage was still much worse overall.
-Con goes back to the truth standard, but it's really hard to see *how* important this point is. Still, pro has agreement with constitutionality, so I suppose the shared point makes it somewhat relevant here.
- Con addresses the youtube video of the burning building, though ignores the larger number of thousands of business. He does however address it by saying the opportunist crowd caused destruction, with contradictory motives. So while the news article attributed to BLM direct caused, Con argues (although slightly late) that the demonstrators couldn't be linked to BLM itself.
- Con repeats that the 850 being arrested, while the BLM only had a very very few percent getting federal crime, which is quite impressive. A little late, but still good point.
- Con unnecessarily spends a bit too long talking about Jorge committing no crimes and Sean surrendering, though it helps a little bit... I suppose.
- Con makes more comparisons with rhetorical questions trying to demonstrate pure amount of deaths isn't really the measurement. While Pro has little to go on for support, Con also has very little to say why the constitutionality idea would result in something "worse" overall.
Conclusion
Honestly I have not a lot to go on. Con tries to blanket statement rely on "the truth" fighting which makes me wonder why he said it in this manner. If he mentioned a word or two about how the constitution is the basic trust of America, that the president has to enforce it, and perhaps linked it to the lie by the president himself, which inevitably caused impeachment (even if it was not executed), there could be some logic in there. But there is too much to jump the logic so I am not sure why something "atrocious in nature" alone could be proved to be "worse of", since Con has not proved why supporting the constitution along with Truth is so important. On the other hand, while Pro also has little bit, the general impacts debate structure is what I'm more used to, and calculates the basic destruction by the BLM community.
So who wins in the end? Pro had misread his source and repeatedly attributed the 95% to the BLM, despite it telling the opposite. He had the 2$ billion dollars of damage, but Con made it ambiguous enough whether the rioters caused it or the anti-rioters did it -- especially with his support. Con had about 800+ people arrested, which seemed to be a better number than whatever vagueness Pro had. Due to Pro misrepresenting numbers and being somewhat weak in his support, I believe Con holds a slight edge, though more detail on the Constitutionality would have been more impactful than arguing over burden of proof. I don't think giving BoP to Pro would've given Con the win more compared to Current situation.
I had the impression your round 1 was supposed to mean Truth was more important to uphold than results, due to ambiguity in your statement. It's hard to parse since there is no support for why supporting the constitution alone could outweigh the Pro impacts (if Pro impacts held). If you defeated Pro's impacts, there's no need to talk about principles either, though I guess you could add it as a cherry on top.
RFD Pt. 2
I... am not sure doing the source embedding is not allowed, as shortening links would have also saved space. Non factor for me.
Also yeah, Oromagi constantly tries to shift BoP even when debate rules state otherwise... I don't see how pro would have sole or main bop, so that doesn't work in Con's favor.
Anyways...
- Pro continues that Fighting can still result in more devastating results, which is the prime point of his idea.
- He trails onto Afghanistan's war being unreasonable despite having good origin, due to millions of deaths and horrid destruction. Alright, I can buy that.
- Pro states the BLM riots were far too violent, though avoids con's point that most of them were not that violent.
- Pro repeats the insured damage and how the arson was damaging, and the 800 people storming the capitol was an insignificant proportion compared to the BLM numbers.
- Pro continues by saying the 88% BLM activists perpetrated/caused the damage, which means his impacts still stand.
- Pro tries to clarify the deaths by saying the BLM would still attribute to the deaths, thus cannot be negated.
- Pro repeats 2,000 officers injured and increase in crime.
-Pro follows by saying difficulty to develop infrastructure.
- Pro says it is very common to rioters to burn down minorities' homes
Con continues saying that the BLM results should be separated from the White supremacism (since they were against BLM, and thus shouldn't be grouped together). I think I can buy this too, though it's ambiguous whether we should count the protestors potentially being harmed here.
Anyways. Con goes off a bit tangent by saying Iraq War was based off of lies and even worse with more american soldiers dying. Well, this honestly doesn't help his principle based case, since he is going off of how many people dying, so... I still don't see a framework why to accept principles over results. Which is unfortunate.
Con refutes the 800 number by saying more than 2,000 had attacked the capitol building, and continues repeating the Harvard study by saying property damage only occurred at 3% of events and violence even less. Con also says that American supported BLM, while condemned Jan 6th, which is a nice find.
Con also refutes the ACLED source by saying the 93% of demonstrations show no violence or destruction. The evidence stated in there refutes Pro's own cases, which is no good. Con also points out the people *against* BLM were the primary exploration of Pro's case, which is not really caused by BLM protests (rather they were against protests).
RFD
Funny realization, Oromagi hasn't actually had to conduct many impact based ideas versus principle so this one is ... interesting to say the least.
Pro lists:
- 1~2$ billion insured damage, only occurred in two weeks, making the time-scale pretty tough to beat
- thousands of buildings burned or damage, or vandalized businesses
- American families lost their sources of income
- Under construction house were set ablaze, perpetuating the poverty (hard to differentiate from previous point)
- At least six people killed, 400 cops from NYPD hurt, 2,000 officers nationwide
- Homicides rose significantly, with 6,000 extra deaths nationwide
And finally ending with capitol riot only costing 1.5$ million to the US Capitol Building. So far looking good.
- Con starts by saying the riots were based off of Trump's false claim, thus being worse purely off of the basic idea of the riot.
- followed by trying to overcome the US Constitution
- Con says 1,000+ tried to overturn the election result, while turning pro's points against him by saying the Floyd murder was protesting in a justified manner.
- Con says only the Umbrella Man and Ivan Hunter with specific cherry picks caused the problems.
- Con's further 19 death picks seem inconsequential in the big picture, so let's move onto the 7,000 protest study. Con states the violence were low, and most were against protestors.
- Con argues Pro's ideas were vague since there was no way to prove the deaths directly related/caused by protesters themselves, making it difficult to due so
- Con also says Impact of COVID may have inflated numbers with economic assessment (this doesn't unset the insured damage point, however)
Con hasn't said why principle is more important than results; if someone claims to lawfully do something but ends up killing 100 innocents, while someone merely sets off to unlawfully do something, yet achieves nothing, I am not convinced Con's ideas are to be taken at face value. Let's see what pro says... (TBU)
Even though the official site tells you not to endorse criminal activity, this is very loosely enforced as many debates concern illegal activity, such as banning abortion or legalizing euthanization.
I could semantics this thing but it would get annoying haha.
I can try giving commentary. As I am a left winger and side with the impeachment of Trump, I believe I would have the least amount of bias towards Pro.
Round 3’s: oromagi repeats every singular point he made before without any significant changes. He’s clearly winning on the MEEP side, though I’m a bit saddened to see whiteflame only informed of his crucial weakness in the final round. As We both notice, the connection is only apparent on a very fundamental level. It’s unfortunate but I couldn’t see anything that connected MEEP to being an immutable rule set, especially since the topic concerned supervising the election. No matter how I read through the arguments I can’t find a way to justify pro’s ideas. The inherent nature was also in the way they look over the MEEP, in other words con bringing up the moderation overview was a key point to disprove the debate resolution. The adaptability was the most crucial because the election “supervision” at heart is meant for the people in overall retrospect. So therefore the “violation of binding guideline” is a very vague idea with almost no repurcussion on pro. He can only tell us that moderators were untrustworthy but made up for it with the results of the election. Hence, I give my vote to con.
Con r2: whiteflame retains his general over view, leaving me to wonder about the holes with the two week of seeming negligence. It would really help, ironically, in my opinion, to show countering examples where the other moderators had done something to excuse for the time gap. Just in case he couldn’t win this argument.
But okay, whiteflame repeats that because it’s the first time, you can’t accept “binding for binding” sake. I don’t see a clear answer to oromagi’s suggestion of beginning on 1st and explaining problems early, however whiteflame did tell us that the moderators would have done a poor job due to scheduling. Therefore the conclusion would be only Supa had done poorly, and even then he had admitted the errors. The resulting problem with voter or candidates is then vague as whiteflame argues: pro is very ambiguous, as pro merely has the philosophy of “neglect” to rely on rather than a true level of “neglect”. Since con explained there was clear attention paid to ban airmax goon as well as apology for lack of attention, this contradicts pros claim of negligence.
Pro r2: oromagi fights back with more resolute and solid language. He shows that MEEP was said to be binding, adding on that the final schedule could be predicted. Combined with the two weeks of inactivity, the negligence was clear. Though supa had taken accountability, it was a bit late and a double edged sword. The air max goon situation. Is a bit more unclear to me especially if the account owner was punished, but pro seems to be saying they didn’t stop the fradulent activity despite it being blatant and obvious. I can buy pros argument and once again he seems winning… for now.
Con r1: on the other hand whiteflame lays out a pretty clear and understandable counter note, showing pro had an assumption that what was written is binding. As I suspected he would state, because the platform is under development it’s still up in the air about precise times; therefore one month off is not a problem, especially as whiteflame shows the participants had plenty of time to respond. Next, the users who had violated the issue had been banned. So things are looking bad for oromagi here but I have faith in him. Let’s see what he says.
RFD to be updated
I typed this on my phone as I have free time though I have to keep this concise or else it will take eternity.
Round 1 pro opens with a simple but interesting list of violations. Moderation had missed the dates by a month (though how severe this is for debate art, I have no Clue). So it’s really about intuitive grasping how negative this is with regards to enforcing election. I’ll buy this with a grain of salt, but I really feel it’s hard to sympathize since there is no standards and so I don’t know how bad being late by one month actually is. There is however clear showing of banned accounts that were poorly managed, and thus pro gains reasonable grounds for his case. Now to go to con.
I have been pretty busy recently but I was stumbling back on here to see what was going on. Are you still interested in this topic?
looks like you caught me playing Devil's Advocate again.
(I kind of forget exactly why I'm pro, but we'll see.)