a bastardly approach, but Four Points is not FPTP... Winner Selection is! (If 7 people give 1 point to one person, while 5 people give 3 points to the other, it's clear who the winner is)
You mentioned Hall of Fame, so I was curious what the new influential members thought of this debate, as it is very controversial and a teaching moment for both of us.
The comparison is a bit off. If truffles provided a nutritious net benefit for its cost I’m sure you could argue for incorporating truffles in your breakfast. With no alternatives you clearly offer, the video game benefits are crushing here in coal and fourtrouble’s view points.
ah, there's the rub, isn't it? The first question would ultimately decide on how forgiving the company is. As for hiring vs environment, I think that'd be an entirely different debate...
Now I know this is an odd ping but hall of fame is coming up and I’m betting intelligence hasn’t forgotten this lost. I’m really curious about your thought on this very controversial debate if you have time. I was losing in terms of argument votes but winning overall in points thanks to weirdness in sourcing and conduct. You are the first users to come to mind when I think “who could have really made a difference and I wouldn’t have minded”?
Who do you think won this debate? What are your thoughts on the polarizing opinions?
I think your “non existent god” argument may be too confusing for faux law causing you two to speak over each other’s heads. Simpler wording might help a little bit XD
Ironically, my real belief is far more complex than this. Open border is probably quite problematic in reality due to immigrant issue competing with natives (see Whiteflame debate against Gugigor). The alternative of Citizenship Market also largely dulls the impact of my case. However, if I had to choose status quo vs open border, I’d probably choose open border.
oh, impressive. I've never seen an ontological argument like that. There was something off to me about the idea of the inherent "Creator behind the scenes". I agree that the Big Bang seems even more miraculous than an omnipotent god, because there was no "infinitely powerful creator", and therefore even more "all powerful" in my opinion. Let's see how Fauxlaw responds.
I'd love to play devil's advocate (perhaps, pun intended), but this debate would likely be near impossible for me. Perhaps you guys would like a chance first.
I’d scratch my head on sources as well, considering you (white flame) didn’t take a stance on my other video game debate where my sources were scrutinized severely by other debaters. Nice vote though. I wasn’t sure why madman took this strange approach
while illegalizing prohibition is near impossible to argue for con, social prohibition (ex. "the societal norm should be shunning sex work") is a very tricky stance that I can potentially take to destroy your assumptions. Is this something you would like?
probably not enough time for you to vote, but I'm interested in your analysis and who you thought won. Your judgement tends to be more in-depth than most people on this site.
interesting. Was I too loose in my analysis and my attempt to pierce through their weaknesses and strengths? I didn't treat this as if I was debating them (likely a more thorough decision), but rather picking out the core of the arguments and thinking through if they were really correct when pitted against their opponent's stance.
I believe Spacetime's original vote was borderline sufficient. While he didn't outright say Pro's evidence was outweighed by con's analysis, spacetime focused on the counter plan and weighed it important enough that CP perhaps wasn't even that relevant to defeat any concrete impacts of RJ. His vote isn't as crystal clear as mine, but I think it's still satisfactory.
I am not sure spacetime is allowed to vote like this. While his original vote certainly showed he definitely read out con's side, my analysis picks out key points that I believed were important, skipping over minor details. He is basically making my vote worth double, which is certainly a compliment in itself, but my way of reading into Coal's arguments may be different from other voters.
most advanced debates are about the key premises and why they outweigh. I don't see the problem with that. I just like analyzing all the arguments because it helps when they don't say outright what the most important part of argument is
Coal opens up with arguments about current violation, failures of suspension based discipline, hurt of minority, and proof of corporal punishment successfully making children more "involved and optimistic". He adds upon authorities who agree that CP works, and that children would take it over missing out on school. This is the basis of his premise, and relatively solid.
FT counters with the idea that punishment should never be done, as it isn't necessary for learning or discipline. He also asserts that it conflicts with our needs. Here he creates a counter idea where you shouldn't need to correct children at all. I don't see how children can rehabilitate on themselves, but let's see if Pro notices this issue.
Pro notices that FT's idea of restorative justice may be problematic because punishment has still be universal in society. He also thinks about looking forward, backwards, to point out noticing the reason behind the punishment. The requirement by justice, or the prevent of future harm, are interesting ideas that somewhat echo with his first round. He continues by saying that CP is used to correct misbehavior, preventing disruption, and also that Con's system being quite vague to mitigate the problem -- something I noticed myself. Finally, he claims that the schools represent work, and that the submission to power is key. (However, this brings another can of worms in that Employees cannot be CP'd by Employers, potentially killing this comparison.)
Con continues with clarification by noting that the violence in particular makes the issue an issue, and that Restorative Justice is far more effective, using two strong studies. This is excellent and does big work to help support his impacts. Next, he uses common sense to show that psychological problems can form, and that the societal norm of harming children could be perpetuated -- bringing in the slippery slope of using CP on adults, something I noted myself. He counters that CP can result in worse behavior, and even says Pro has methodological weaknesses. The RCT's put the nail in the coffin to provide evidence supporting reduced spanking. Con also pierces through Fuller and L&B, noting that only parenting styles were analyzed rather than CP. Finally, he concludes with the same Gershoff Meta analysis to prove that compliance does not work. With this round in mind, he completely overturns all of Pro's arguments.
Pro continues asserting his same evidence, but he doesn't tell us how Hermann outweighs Gershoff's meta-analysis. He says Con's RJ system is contradiction, as it's a different type of punishment, but doesn't notice Con's crux that violence inflicted is the problem, not punishment. He says Con thinks some discipline is necessary, but doesn't tell us why the RJ has the same or bigger problems compared to CP. Then, he continues by arguing that Fuller 2015 was questioning the methodologies, going into detail about how Baumrind noticed he was overly broad in his analysis. This is excellent to reduce this study's impact. He also notices how Sweden's stats counter Con's slipper slope of violence. He concludes that CNN and other sources prove that CP have a significant effect.
Con crystallizes that the RJ is completely different from the infliction of harm, and that his case is uniquely strong especially in the promotion of responsibility while respecting rights, without mindless obedience. Con also notices that Pro drops most of the inherent harms, and that Gershoff's non-correlational ideas are still pretty strong, especially with 2016 and 2018 studies fixing the co-mingling of meta analysis. He furthers with the fact that the three sources only talk about parent-child relationship, rather than in-school CP. This greatly damages Pro's ideas. Finally, he concludes that RJ would promote a more democratic and free solution compared to CP.
With the anti-CP sources fixed by the end of the debate, and not much impact killed from Con's arguments about RJ, Pro fails to overturn the ideas that CP is inherently violent, damaging, and unjustifiable. Pro could have done better if he proved that the American school system was not all that different from parent-child relationship, and potentially bridge the gap between his studies and his results. However, Pro is losing by a landslide because he went into great detail about sources without noticing the bigger picture and the painted imagery of CP that Con produces. As such, vote to Con.
You presumed that the baby was already born! Yes, even a time difference of one day can make a big difference! If I forced you to bring birth to a fetus by using your life and blood, you would be pain and discomfort, trying any and which way to refuse this imposed problem on you. But if it was an actual comatose person, things get a bit more blurry about whether you can disconnect the life support or not.
nothing makes them more valuable other than warped Pro-life logic (your logic). If pro choice is correct, then no fetus should be treated as a proper human. There is no manslaughter charge to "killing" it
It is not about change of species, it is about change of personhood. The fetus growing into the human only happens after 13 weeks (all body organs form), with brain function/identity created far after 20 weeks, while most abortions are before 13 weeks. So you still can't treat all human fetus as humans.
"easy"? Hell no! Your fertilization and DNA logic is completely warped, especially since the Brain hasn't even fully formed! Not to mention miscarriage rates
I am not the best at abortion debates. If you'd read the Weaker Edge's abortion debate, he tells us much more clearly why the chromosomes in addition to known human "life" is still a bad standard. Especially since even sperm still contains the chromosomes and DNA, meaning that there must still yet be something more to that. And the FLO is largely destroyed if the person is living in a life terminating illness with a high chance of death. (Not to mention incredible discomfort and danger in birth) If the mother is forcibly placed on life support to give her blood to her son, I would say she has the right to remove that life support, even at the cost of the son's death.
You open up with the classic argument that killing the human life is equivalent to killing the human being, which is immensely flawed because it assumes that the measurement of beginning of life can be weighed the same as their right to life. There's a lot of good arguments about how development of brain matters a lot, because you need better standard than merely some medical opinion. Tell us *why* the fetus is a human life, but not dead skin cells, or sperm, or any of the other stuff.
You follow up with the classic FLO, which instantly falls apart at my first glance with the famous 50% miscarriage stat that would've severely negated this argument, making it nearly worthless. Even if we accept the unconscious person argument, I see no pre-emptive rebuttal against standard arguments about rape or self-defense, which would destroy FLO severely.
The uncertainty principle is one of the strongest pro-life arguments and you performed pretty well there. There aren't any severe flaws I can think of, but standard attacks still work by planting your feet solid in the ground with the knowledge that the woman's right to life is definite, while Pro essentially admits he has to take a gamble.
200th comment. Tough luck in hall of fame, hah.
Excellent job. Not the way I would have argued it, but interesting.
a bastardly approach, but Four Points is not FPTP... Winner Selection is! (If 7 people give 1 point to one person, while 5 people give 3 points to the other, it's clear who the winner is)
You mentioned Hall of Fame, so I was curious what the new influential members thought of this debate, as it is very controversial and a teaching moment for both of us.
The comparison is a bit off. If truffles provided a nutritious net benefit for its cost I’m sure you could argue for incorporating truffles in your breakfast. With no alternatives you clearly offer, the video game benefits are crushing here in coal and fourtrouble’s view points.
After I posted that round I almost forgot why I was Con in the first place, hah. Research does that sometimes.
ah, there's the rub, isn't it? The first question would ultimately decide on how forgiving the company is. As for hiring vs environment, I think that'd be an entirely different debate...
Not sure how I missed this one. I would have voted…
Now I know this is an odd ping but hall of fame is coming up and I’m betting intelligence hasn’t forgotten this lost. I’m really curious about your thought on this very controversial debate if you have time. I was losing in terms of argument votes but winning overall in points thanks to weirdness in sourcing and conduct. You are the first users to come to mind when I think “who could have really made a difference and I wouldn’t have minded”?
Who do you think won this debate? What are your thoughts on the polarizing opinions?
just a heads up, I know nearly nothing about sterilization, so feel free to ask me questions about detail in my vote.
I’ve been really busy these days. Can we tie and/or delete this debate? I’m not sure I’m able to produce good arguments
I think your “non existent god” argument may be too confusing for faux law causing you two to speak over each other’s heads. Simpler wording might help a little bit XD
Ironically, my real belief is far more complex than this. Open border is probably quite problematic in reality due to immigrant issue competing with natives (see Whiteflame debate against Gugigor). The alternative of Citizenship Market also largely dulls the impact of my case. However, if I had to choose status quo vs open border, I’d probably choose open border.
sorry. Got absorbed in my job and ran out of time. :(
I can kinda get where you're coming from haha...
This looks like a truism. Would you like the harder, "Frankincense should be Standardized and endorsed as a Medicine by Doctors and pharmacies"?
sorry, I got too busy
oh, impressive. I've never seen an ontological argument like that. There was something off to me about the idea of the inherent "Creator behind the scenes". I agree that the Big Bang seems even more miraculous than an omnipotent god, because there was no "infinitely powerful creator", and therefore even more "all powerful" in my opinion. Let's see how Fauxlaw responds.
Any idea what happened? Edge usually isn’t the type to forfeit two rounds in a row.
Of course it’s unfair. The question is whether it should be allowed despite unfairness
I'd love to play devil's advocate (perhaps, pun intended), but this debate would likely be near impossible for me. Perhaps you guys would like a chance first.
Highly unlikely? That means it wasn’t impossible? I could argue they were *impossible* to fake.
I’d scratch my head on sources as well, considering you (white flame) didn’t take a stance on my other video game debate where my sources were scrutinized severely by other debaters. Nice vote though. I wasn’t sure why madman took this strange approach
Yeah we should make this unrated just in case. I clearly remember Fauxlaw dropping rating in our first debate tied by seldiora
I remember you destroying Mikal in a debate similar to this way back in DDO. Care for another go, or tired?
while illegalizing prohibition is near impossible to argue for con, social prohibition (ex. "the societal norm should be shunning sex work") is a very tricky stance that I can potentially take to destroy your assumptions. Is this something you would like?
probably watching with horror
You guys seem pretty good at semantic debates. There's a bit of policy involved here, but that's probably only half the fight.
about one week left. Just who made the blunder of failing to participate in this debate, me, or Rational Madman? Let's see.
you're YYW?!! Ah, that would explain why you're so tough to beat
probably not enough time for you to vote, but I'm interested in your analysis and who you thought won. Your judgement tends to be more in-depth than most people on this site.
interesting. Was I too loose in my analysis and my attempt to pierce through their weaknesses and strengths? I didn't treat this as if I was debating them (likely a more thorough decision), but rather picking out the core of the arguments and thinking through if they were really correct when pitted against their opponent's stance.
I believe Spacetime's original vote was borderline sufficient. While he didn't outright say Pro's evidence was outweighed by con's analysis, spacetime focused on the counter plan and weighed it important enough that CP perhaps wasn't even that relevant to defeat any concrete impacts of RJ. His vote isn't as crystal clear as mine, but I think it's still satisfactory.
I am not sure spacetime is allowed to vote like this. While his original vote certainly showed he definitely read out con's side, my analysis picks out key points that I believed were important, skipping over minor details. He is basically making my vote worth double, which is certainly a compliment in itself, but my way of reading into Coal's arguments may be different from other voters.
most advanced debates are about the key premises and why they outweigh. I don't see the problem with that. I just like analyzing all the arguments because it helps when they don't say outright what the most important part of argument is
you would probably be interested in this one.
RFD
Coal opens up with arguments about current violation, failures of suspension based discipline, hurt of minority, and proof of corporal punishment successfully making children more "involved and optimistic". He adds upon authorities who agree that CP works, and that children would take it over missing out on school. This is the basis of his premise, and relatively solid.
FT counters with the idea that punishment should never be done, as it isn't necessary for learning or discipline. He also asserts that it conflicts with our needs. Here he creates a counter idea where you shouldn't need to correct children at all. I don't see how children can rehabilitate on themselves, but let's see if Pro notices this issue.
Pro notices that FT's idea of restorative justice may be problematic because punishment has still be universal in society. He also thinks about looking forward, backwards, to point out noticing the reason behind the punishment. The requirement by justice, or the prevent of future harm, are interesting ideas that somewhat echo with his first round. He continues by saying that CP is used to correct misbehavior, preventing disruption, and also that Con's system being quite vague to mitigate the problem -- something I noticed myself. Finally, he claims that the schools represent work, and that the submission to power is key. (However, this brings another can of worms in that Employees cannot be CP'd by Employers, potentially killing this comparison.)
Con continues with clarification by noting that the violence in particular makes the issue an issue, and that Restorative Justice is far more effective, using two strong studies. This is excellent and does big work to help support his impacts. Next, he uses common sense to show that psychological problems can form, and that the societal norm of harming children could be perpetuated -- bringing in the slippery slope of using CP on adults, something I noted myself. He counters that CP can result in worse behavior, and even says Pro has methodological weaknesses. The RCT's put the nail in the coffin to provide evidence supporting reduced spanking. Con also pierces through Fuller and L&B, noting that only parenting styles were analyzed rather than CP. Finally, he concludes with the same Gershoff Meta analysis to prove that compliance does not work. With this round in mind, he completely overturns all of Pro's arguments.
Pro continues asserting his same evidence, but he doesn't tell us how Hermann outweighs Gershoff's meta-analysis. He says Con's RJ system is contradiction, as it's a different type of punishment, but doesn't notice Con's crux that violence inflicted is the problem, not punishment. He says Con thinks some discipline is necessary, but doesn't tell us why the RJ has the same or bigger problems compared to CP. Then, he continues by arguing that Fuller 2015 was questioning the methodologies, going into detail about how Baumrind noticed he was overly broad in his analysis. This is excellent to reduce this study's impact. He also notices how Sweden's stats counter Con's slipper slope of violence. He concludes that CNN and other sources prove that CP have a significant effect.
Con crystallizes that the RJ is completely different from the infliction of harm, and that his case is uniquely strong especially in the promotion of responsibility while respecting rights, without mindless obedience. Con also notices that Pro drops most of the inherent harms, and that Gershoff's non-correlational ideas are still pretty strong, especially with 2016 and 2018 studies fixing the co-mingling of meta analysis. He furthers with the fact that the three sources only talk about parent-child relationship, rather than in-school CP. This greatly damages Pro's ideas. Finally, he concludes that RJ would promote a more democratic and free solution compared to CP.
With the anti-CP sources fixed by the end of the debate, and not much impact killed from Con's arguments about RJ, Pro fails to overturn the ideas that CP is inherently violent, damaging, and unjustifiable. Pro could have done better if he proved that the American school system was not all that different from parent-child relationship, and potentially bridge the gap between his studies and his results. However, Pro is losing by a landslide because he went into great detail about sources without noticing the bigger picture and the painted imagery of CP that Con produces. As such, vote to Con.
You presumed that the baby was already born! Yes, even a time difference of one day can make a big difference! If I forced you to bring birth to a fetus by using your life and blood, you would be pain and discomfort, trying any and which way to refuse this imposed problem on you. But if it was an actual comatose person, things get a bit more blurry about whether you can disconnect the life support or not.
nothing makes them more valuable other than warped Pro-life logic (your logic). If pro choice is correct, then no fetus should be treated as a proper human. There is no manslaughter charge to "killing" it
It is not about change of species, it is about change of personhood. The fetus growing into the human only happens after 13 weeks (all body organs form), with brain function/identity created far after 20 weeks, while most abortions are before 13 weeks. So you still can't treat all human fetus as humans.
"easy"? Hell no! Your fertilization and DNA logic is completely warped, especially since the Brain hasn't even fully formed! Not to mention miscarriage rates
We: Society
Should: The beneficial action to take, under net balance restrictions
I am not the best at abortion debates. If you'd read the Weaker Edge's abortion debate, he tells us much more clearly why the chromosomes in addition to known human "life" is still a bad standard. Especially since even sperm still contains the chromosomes and DNA, meaning that there must still yet be something more to that. And the FLO is largely destroyed if the person is living in a life terminating illness with a high chance of death. (Not to mention incredible discomfort and danger in birth) If the mother is forcibly placed on life support to give her blood to her son, I would say she has the right to remove that life support, even at the cost of the son's death.
Alright.
You open up with the classic argument that killing the human life is equivalent to killing the human being, which is immensely flawed because it assumes that the measurement of beginning of life can be weighed the same as their right to life. There's a lot of good arguments about how development of brain matters a lot, because you need better standard than merely some medical opinion. Tell us *why* the fetus is a human life, but not dead skin cells, or sperm, or any of the other stuff.
You follow up with the classic FLO, which instantly falls apart at my first glance with the famous 50% miscarriage stat that would've severely negated this argument, making it nearly worthless. Even if we accept the unconscious person argument, I see no pre-emptive rebuttal against standard arguments about rape or self-defense, which would destroy FLO severely.
The uncertainty principle is one of the strongest pro-life arguments and you performed pretty well there. There aren't any severe flaws I can think of, but standard attacks still work by planting your feet solid in the ground with the knowledge that the woman's right to life is definite, while Pro essentially admits he has to take a gamble.
fine, LOL
they are probably above my fighting skills.
feel free to think it over.
this is the worst possible premise. A better premise would be "a human fetus ought to be treated as a human"
any feedback? Did I choose a bad premise?
ez stuff