Interesting... so it would be like saying a non scientific topic that is heavily resolved, but doesn’t mean that people should treat it a specific way.
well played. I think I misinterpreted your round 1, and likely chose a wrong resolution for my arguments. Congratulations... assuming no other votes arrive.
but... if Transgender right arguments are psychological/neurological, what's the difference between evidence for evolution and evidence for transgender?
In my opinion, that would still be similar to saying "we ought to treat Evolution as True", which is only one step away from "evolution is true". I'm interested in your rebuttals though, so go ahead with your round.
to Edge: Woo! That's a pretty strong opening if I do say so myself.
to Athias: I've done enough research to know that Pro Trans Right arguments are as rigorous as the evidence for theory of Evolution, if not Anti-Flat Earth or Pro-Old Earth theory. This is gonna be a really, really hard debate.
Note: I will re-read and re-vote on this with higher standards later. It's a tie at first read/glance. I have to compare arguments to see who did better.
Sum1 opens up with his burden with the ideas behind the Big Bang, supporting with the Hubble Law, the universe temperature, Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, and standard evidence for the big bang. Pretty normal stuff.
Con counters about the Hubble Law expansion rate, especially since mere expansion doesn’t prove the big bang. The 1931 year timeline seems too soon to accept this. He adds on the horizon problem which highlights theories not supported by evidence. Next, the flatness problem also presents issues with the requirement of incredible coincidence.
Pro responds by moving forth to 1979, addressing Flatness using con’s own source to explain the inflation curve idea. Pro confirms Hubble was in 1929 and Lemaitre gained the same equations. He also furthers that he doesn’t need stronger empirical theory, using the observational ideas and predictions.
Fruit continues to counter that the real publication only occurred in 1931, with the (paraphrased) “earliest form of model not meaningfully proposed until after discovery”. Con continues tackling that the universe may not be currently expanding. He then turns it around in that the expanding universe predicted the big bang, not the other way around. Con continues that the Big Bang model vs the CMB wasn’t entirely fitting. He asserts that cosmic inflation is necessary, but has no novel predictions and is unfalsifiable. The reliance of assumptions makes pro’s ideas unclear. (I recommend using less quotes next time)
Pro concludes that Georges solved the relativity for the universe, and tried to prove the singularity point. He notes that the new model better builds upon the past model. He also highlights that the CMBr was predicted, matching the Big Bang theory ideas. He also points out the six generic predictions were mostly confirmed, especially with fluctuations.
Con repeats the rebuttals to hubble law, noting that Pro lacks a clear citation on current studies. However, the last conclusion is confusing, since he states it’s a hypothesis to explain the expanding, rather than predicting. It’s a bit arbitrary what impact this has on the overall big bang idea. He also continues that CMB doesn’t solve the big bang, especially that cosmic inflation is still necessary. He also points out that CMB was the only observation, but returns to his previous argument to try to negate. Finally, he repeats the problems in inflation. I buy the lack of prediction, but I don’t buy the unfalsifiable, as I don’t think Pro has to be more specific than “contrary data”.
Decision
Pro provides a good foundation, but lacks current information that is likely more powerful and would be able to prove his case better. In addition, the Hubble problem was largely unaddressed to me. Interpreting the resolution as “more likely than not”, it’s unclear whether there’s enough evidence from here for pro to win. Hence, I tied the debate.
Feel free to ask any questions and for clarification, I voted this while slightly distracted so it’s not the best vote possible.
For some reason, this debate's arguments felt really hard to see through (though I'm used to bigger impact shown in policy debates). I felt like both of you kind of talked over each other.
(also, I should've probably brought the debate into a more technical focused sphere, because I doubt you know more about computer science than me, which would've given me an advantage, instead of politics which was your forte)
All Con has to prove is that Earth is 4 billion years old and that physics determine that the flat earth would form into a sphere (graaavity), and they win.
obviously Con side's data is skewed and misses the resolution. There's a reason I said I was pro on the topic. I'm giving him a chance by playing devil's advocate. Let's see if Unpopular notices the crucial flaw missing in the link!
that's not what Pro is trying to argue and you know it. If lockdowns work as proposed (my Pro mindset), the overall spread would slow because you limit to those people in home rather than those in public. It matters especially for people who live on their own. If individuals are isolated then obviously Pro's case works to a certain extent...
to be fair, I think Coal's way of arguing is very easy to make people on edge. (pun intended? lol)
As I showed in my debate about Covid 19 lockdown effectiveness, Con side looks like it's largely winning from evidence alone.
I am only Pro because I believe con side's bones can be broken and the entire framework collapses because it hinges on the fact that people are stupid and government is dumb, rather than people are smart and/or gov. is reasonable (see Belarus, which is a double edged sword showing that people's collaboration means ANY policy works, lockdown or otherwise)
aren't you that one guy from... Debate.org? Unfortunate for me. I did my best with research but it's really hard to prove Pro side with only 10k characters per round.
you know, I feel like fruit inspector could actually win this by saying all humans are evil and all humans have sinned. Through god, blah blah blah, we must repent ourselves, yada yada, and Trump is nowhere near Jesus's salvation, so on and so forth, religious arguments, win win win.
any feedback is appreciated from your side too. I'm astonished that 40+ sources couldn't prove this topic. I guess I might really need 100 to win this debate...
I suppose Con side isn't quite as good as "substance" especially for my standard, but a lot of it's related to the simple logic of why status quo is happening
Also funny note: I am actually also PRO on this topic but I found CON fun to argue because there's a lot of substance that you can use to twist it to your favor
I'm sorry for injecting so many emotional arguments, but I'd argue you forced my hand by reducing my ability to show deeper analysis and more arguments. They always say the best way to get through a conspiracy is to use emotional arguments to throw them off their assumptions...
are you willing to agree to a tie? My case was so complex and filled with research such that my entire "constructive" wasn't nearly done until round 3. I intended to have a 30,000 character limit but forgot to change it. I feel like we're talking over each other, because my case has to be taken as an overall whole rather than small piece of tidbit facts. I'd like an opportunity to rebuild my story and have a more proper debate, because my in-depth analysis of impacts will address your problems if we had 20k~30k characters.
With this debate right now, I don't think I'd be happy even if I won, and I'd be especially frustrated if I lost. My research was more in depth than before but it's very hard to prove Pro's case with only 10k per round plus rebuttals...
whoeee, you're giving me a tough time here. Good job man. Having to do more research on the policy related side and seeing why Fauxlaw was able to negate all my 20 sources. Well, I doubt you can negate all my 20 other sources...
(Also sorry about my numbering of sources, I lose track of them very easily)
Interesting... so it would be like saying a non scientific topic that is heavily resolved, but doesn’t mean that people should treat it a specific way.
You should debate blamonkey, misterchris or whiteflame some time. I believe they’ll put up the challenge you wanted...(though maybe not this topic)
well played. I think I misinterpreted your round 1, and likely chose a wrong resolution for my arguments. Congratulations... assuming no other votes arrive.
but... if Transgender right arguments are psychological/neurological, what's the difference between evidence for evolution and evidence for transgender?
three days left...
bumperino
In my opinion, that would still be similar to saying "we ought to treat Evolution as True", which is only one step away from "evolution is true". I'm interested in your rebuttals though, so go ahead with your round.
Congratulations on getting boosted to second place in the leaderboard for beating me!
to Edge: Woo! That's a pretty strong opening if I do say so myself.
to Athias: I've done enough research to know that Pro Trans Right arguments are as rigorous as the evidence for theory of Evolution, if not Anti-Flat Earth or Pro-Old Earth theory. This is gonna be a really, really hard debate.
Note: I will re-read and re-vote on this with higher standards later. It's a tie at first read/glance. I have to compare arguments to see who did better.
Sum1 opens up with his burden with the ideas behind the Big Bang, supporting with the Hubble Law, the universe temperature, Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, and standard evidence for the big bang. Pretty normal stuff.
Con counters about the Hubble Law expansion rate, especially since mere expansion doesn’t prove the big bang. The 1931 year timeline seems too soon to accept this. He adds on the horizon problem which highlights theories not supported by evidence. Next, the flatness problem also presents issues with the requirement of incredible coincidence.
Pro responds by moving forth to 1979, addressing Flatness using con’s own source to explain the inflation curve idea. Pro confirms Hubble was in 1929 and Lemaitre gained the same equations. He also furthers that he doesn’t need stronger empirical theory, using the observational ideas and predictions.
Fruit continues to counter that the real publication only occurred in 1931, with the (paraphrased) “earliest form of model not meaningfully proposed until after discovery”. Con continues tackling that the universe may not be currently expanding. He then turns it around in that the expanding universe predicted the big bang, not the other way around. Con continues that the Big Bang model vs the CMB wasn’t entirely fitting. He asserts that cosmic inflation is necessary, but has no novel predictions and is unfalsifiable. The reliance of assumptions makes pro’s ideas unclear. (I recommend using less quotes next time)
Pro concludes that Georges solved the relativity for the universe, and tried to prove the singularity point. He notes that the new model better builds upon the past model. He also highlights that the CMBr was predicted, matching the Big Bang theory ideas. He also points out the six generic predictions were mostly confirmed, especially with fluctuations.
Con repeats the rebuttals to hubble law, noting that Pro lacks a clear citation on current studies. However, the last conclusion is confusing, since he states it’s a hypothesis to explain the expanding, rather than predicting. It’s a bit arbitrary what impact this has on the overall big bang idea. He also continues that CMB doesn’t solve the big bang, especially that cosmic inflation is still necessary. He also points out that CMB was the only observation, but returns to his previous argument to try to negate. Finally, he repeats the problems in inflation. I buy the lack of prediction, but I don’t buy the unfalsifiable, as I don’t think Pro has to be more specific than “contrary data”.
Decision
Pro provides a good foundation, but lacks current information that is likely more powerful and would be able to prove his case better. In addition, the Hubble problem was largely unaddressed to me. Interpreting the resolution as “more likely than not”, it’s unclear whether there’s enough evidence from here for pro to win. Hence, I tied the debate.
Feel free to ask any questions and for clarification, I voted this while slightly distracted so it’s not the best vote possible.
I'm heavily biased towards pro position, but I'll try to tabula rosa for this debate.
*ethics*, or *morality*? Reading Benjamin's vote on our debate, I realized you may have subtly moved this resolution in your favor...
feel free to throw one before this debate disappears
Your position is the correct one. Keep running in circles and add on more logic or credibility to your arguments. Think about the crux of Con's ideas.
one week left
vote.
Up for some analysis?
Based on what I’ve seen, it’s probably only as handicapping as debating thett3 or Roy.
For some reason, this debate's arguments felt really hard to see through (though I'm used to bigger impact shown in policy debates). I felt like both of you kind of talked over each other.
Interested?
oho, interesting. This seems much more fair. I'll have to do more research before considering accepting...
hmm... seems different enough. Uses similar crux phrases and quotes but has more details. That's fair.
are you willing to create another debate where we waive our arguments and voters vote on this debate?
is it possible for you to extend voting time so this doesn't end in a no vote tie?
bump
(also, I should've probably brought the debate into a more technical focused sphere, because I doubt you know more about computer science than me, which would've given me an advantage, instead of politics which was your forte)
damn, I suspected my argument wasn't good enough. Well played, Mr. Chris.
Did I do better than Speedrace in your opinion?
vote?
hahahaha, good luck refuting Newton. Benjamin's not as strong as me in scientific research, but Newton's gravity proof is near irrefutable...
All Con has to prove is that Earth is 4 billion years old and that physics determine that the flat earth would form into a sphere (graaavity), and they win.
if Con's one of those newbies who forfeit every round, I don't think I'll need to prove much at all ;)
the burden IS shared, what are you talking about?
obviously Con side's data is skewed and misses the resolution. There's a reason I said I was pro on the topic. I'm giving him a chance by playing devil's advocate. Let's see if Unpopular notices the crucial flaw missing in the link!
that's not what Pro is trying to argue and you know it. If lockdowns work as proposed (my Pro mindset), the overall spread would slow because you limit to those people in home rather than those in public. It matters especially for people who live on their own. If individuals are isolated then obviously Pro's case works to a certain extent...
to be fair, I think Coal's way of arguing is very easy to make people on edge. (pun intended? lol)
As I showed in my debate about Covid 19 lockdown effectiveness, Con side looks like it's largely winning from evidence alone.
I am only Pro because I believe con side's bones can be broken and the entire framework collapses because it hinges on the fact that people are stupid and government is dumb, rather than people are smart and/or gov. is reasonable (see Belarus, which is a double edged sword showing that people's collaboration means ANY policy works, lockdown or otherwise)
aren't you that one guy from... Debate.org? Unfortunate for me. I did my best with research but it's really hard to prove Pro side with only 10k characters per round.
you know, I feel like fruit inspector could actually win this by saying all humans are evil and all humans have sinned. Through god, blah blah blah, we must repent ourselves, yada yada, and Trump is nowhere near Jesus's salvation, so on and so forth, religious arguments, win win win.
unfortunate. I suppose I'll have to add 5,000 more characters to my argument before trying this again...
any feedback is appreciated from your side too. I'm astonished that 40+ sources couldn't prove this topic. I guess I might really need 100 to win this debate...
wait, what about the voting laws and housing policies I mentioned? What happened to those arguments?
if I lose *THIS* one, mark my words, I can easily destroy you with 20 more sources = 60 sources if we ever meet again...
I suppose Con side isn't quite as good as "substance" especially for my standard, but a lot of it's related to the simple logic of why status quo is happening
Nicely done, madman.
Also funny note: I am actually also PRO on this topic but I found CON fun to argue because there's a lot of substance that you can use to twist it to your favor
I'm sorry for injecting so many emotional arguments, but I'd argue you forced my hand by reducing my ability to show deeper analysis and more arguments. They always say the best way to get through a conspiracy is to use emotional arguments to throw them off their assumptions...
are you willing to agree to a tie? My case was so complex and filled with research such that my entire "constructive" wasn't nearly done until round 3. I intended to have a 30,000 character limit but forgot to change it. I feel like we're talking over each other, because my case has to be taken as an overall whole rather than small piece of tidbit facts. I'd like an opportunity to rebuild my story and have a more proper debate, because my in-depth analysis of impacts will address your problems if we had 20k~30k characters.
With this debate right now, I don't think I'd be happy even if I won, and I'd be especially frustrated if I lost. My research was more in depth than before but it's very hard to prove Pro's case with only 10k per round plus rebuttals...
Beyond reasonable doubt? Do you have any idea how difficult that is? Please make it the civil court case burden of proof instead
whoeee, you're giving me a tough time here. Good job man. Having to do more research on the policy related side and seeing why Fauxlaw was able to negate all my 20 sources. Well, I doubt you can negate all my 20 other sources...
(Also sorry about my numbering of sources, I lose track of them very easily)
here's the full list (some numbers are not used) if you need them. They're a bit of a mess to organize, sorry about that.
1. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4133127/
2. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4306458/
3. scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1376&context=dissertations
4.science.sciencemag.org/content/366/6464/447.abstract
5. science.sciencemag.org/content/369/6502/351
6. science.sciencemag.org/content/369/6510/1440.2.full
7. news.mit.edu/2020/letter-systemic-racism-mit-0701
8. raliance.org/6-companies-taking-action-to-confront-systemic-racism/
9. v.gd/historyracism
10. annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040218-043750
11.pressley.house.gov/sites/pressley.house.gov/files/Anti-Racism%20in%20Public%20Health%20Act%20Summary.pdf
12. v.gd/encyclo
13. scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1035&context=lawineq
14. academyhealth.confex.com/academyhealth/2019nhpc/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/29586
15. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7441277/
16.journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0890117120943736?casa_token=OZfxmkIyeXEAAAAA%3AOXVithEmZZu3JDYr5zhhXqvxPL_wthBTAGhdb6MXg_fgys5tHCQBj-nz3pWROgsE9LXSFut3lM9A
17. apa.org/news/press/releases/2014/03/black-boys-older
18. gao.gov/products/GAO-18-258
19. aclu.org/issues/juvenile-justice/school-prison-pipeline/school-prison-pipeline-infographic
20. racismreview.com/blog/2011/07/12/racism-k-12/
21.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01419870.2012.669839?casa_token=CADVrp2R-yAAAAAA%3AnKtSGcJRdVYTJgx8xtdQrzNVWj7UVlXrDOXFpR-FSxrJc1fRPINy2ro2ArIV-fE3UxTtYHGaCtrg
22. link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-3-319-72233-7
23. routledge.com/Systemic-Racism-A-Theory-of-Oppression/Feagin/p/book/9780415952781
24. aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/0002828042002561
25.https://experts.illinois.edu/en/publications/success-and-failure-how-systemic-racism-trumped-the-ibrown-v-boar
26.https://www.businessinsider.com/us-systemic-racism-in-charts-graphs-data-2020-6#similarly-overall-income-for-black-americans-was-about-42-lower-than-for-whites-in-2018-6
27. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/100-statistics-prove-systemic-racism-thing-kelly-burton-phd/
28. https://www.vox.com/2020/6/17/21284527/systemic-racism-black-americans-9-charts-explained
29.https://www.businessinsider.com/how-redlining-kept-black-americans-from-homeownership-and-still-does-2020-6#redlining-reforms-were-passed-in-the-late-1960s-and-70s-but-its-legacy-is-still-felt-today-3
30. https://www.today.com/tmrw/what-systemic-racism-t207878
given your research on corporal punishment in school, I thought for sure you would be Pro sided in this debate...
bump