Fair enough. I guess I tend to operate under the default assumption that someone is not abnormal in X way, even in the absence of evidence that that is the case. But that's more colloquial than logical.
I guess it's technically possible because I can't determine conclusively if anyone is a narcissist or not. But I think it's fair to say that when there's no good evidence someone is a narcissist, they're not a narcissist.
I'm kind of confused. In this comment section I have been defending the idea that biden is not a narcissist; I don't think there's really a compelling inverse argument unless you really expand what it means to be narcissistic. I also don't have time for a debate.
I don't know, you could be right about Trump. He's very abnormal. But I'm always careful about concluding that these public figures are mentally ill.
Sure RM, if you really want to split hairs, maybe if oro made that argument and then screwed it up in the next rounds I still would've voted for Novice. But the whole reason I made my initial comment is because I noticed an immediate and exploitable flaw in the aff that would be hard to come back from. It's not like judges only can be confident in a debate's outcome once the final words have been said.
Yes, in this hypothetical I would've favored the side that made the stronger argument. But that doesn't mean that I'd always vote for Oro no matter what he said, just because he's a "human supremacist".
If the value of humans vs. animals is directly relevant to the resolution, a vote that can put their views on that issue aside is clearly better than one that can't.
With Trump the case for narcissism is much more compelling, but even there it's unclear since he's a politician and we largely just have his public appearances and statements to go on, which may not reflect his interpersonal personality.
It seems to me that Pro's definition of "slavery" loses the debate on the spot. Con is right that grammatically, the word "another" implies that the person being owned in Pro's definition is a human; therefore, under Pro's definition, animal agriculture cannot be slavery.
Reading Con's R1 though, he kind of mishandles the issue. I think the correct (and kind of tricky) strategy here would have been to wholly concede Pro's definition and then make the argument that it negates the resolution. That takes out Moral Equalization because even if animal agriculture is morally equivalent to slavery, that's insufficient to prove that it is slavery, since slavery is a human-on-human offense. Con has all the right pieces to make this argument, but since he responded to everything and introduced a couple Ks, the point didn't come through.
Now, would people have voted on this argument? I don't know. I would've.
An establishment politician changing their opinions on something over like years, or even being dishonest about their opinions, is an incredibly weak indicator of clinical mental disorder. I'm not aware of that much evidence that he's some kind of predator, either, though most of the accusations I've seen are stupid.
If you want to say that narcissism and psychopathy are endemic to politics, that's a more defensible statement, but usually when someone accuses someone of being mentally ill that implies that they are more abnormal than their situation requires them to be. Also, there's a lot of cruel behavior in every social structure, fuck even high school. But I don't think most bullies are psychopaths.
Can't really prove a negative (and I'd challenge you to prove the positive), but biden is really just an establishment politician, not really a uniquely narcissistic or psychopathic kind of person. There's no evidence to my knowledge that any patterns of grandiosity or callousness in his interpersonal life. The accusations of pedophilia don't seem credible to me, either. Obviously, you could strain to make anyone meet the diagnostic criteria for anything, but that's really not how psychiatry works. Therapists don't check boxes, they look for patterns of dysfunction that seriously affect people's lives, or people come to them with those problems.
I think your perception of the arguments people have on this site as some kind of intellectual pissing contest is kind of silly. Arguments aren't about people.
People with right-wing political views are probably less likely to speak publically about or seek treatment for mental health issues, but they are not necessarily more ill. There have definitely been external disadvantages to the destigmatization of mental health but I think overall it is better that people do not hide these things
Role of the ballot would only be important if your opponent was reading a K, which practically no one reads and it might even be against the Code of Conduct to vote for them. So you didn't need to include it here.
Maybe shells are structured differently in policy... in LD standards would be things like Ground, Clash, Strat Skew, etc. and Voters would be Fairness and Education.
PSA is the most beautiful part about Christianity for me. So many ways to interpret it and really no other religion has an analogous concept; it's what sets Christianity apart. Whether it's moral is another question I guess.
"I still scoff at this debate nonetheless because, whether it's with race or sexuality or what have you, it's always the oppressing group portraying the oppressed group as an inconvenience and an annoyance that makes life harder. "
I think you hit the nail on the head here. A lot of the reason why intolerance towards minorities is so on-its-face absurd is the playing victim. Usually there's a 2000+ year history of group A oppressing group B; group B will respond in some way and then group A will act like that response just came out of thin air
"I'm not necessarily saying your way can't win but this crowd here has almost 0 voters on these debaters that are into hiphop itself, they're just taking a dip into the genre so idk if your 'average' is correct"
I think your comment here ended up being true when looking at Ragnar's vote. From his perspective, someone who I don't think listens to much hiphop, I can understand almost all of the criticisms of my songs except for the "Earl uses the n-word to seem edgy" one.
I think that if I take the opposite approach vs yours, that contrast makes the debate more compelling. Plus it gives the people who do vote access to types of rap music that are (usually) only appreciated by people who are deep into hip hop already.
We could always do this again in a situation where I'd pick more conventionally attractive songs if you'd like
I understand why in your view there is ground for the "K". But you're not disputing the fact that the intention of the debate was very obvious, and you took advantage of what is at worst a relatively small error (compared to the major errors that make most of these tricky Ks justified) and at best not an error at all to alter the course of the round.
Just because a point may be true doesn't mean that you can cite it in any context. Then we'd never be able to have productive conversations about anything.
Why deliberately derail a debate that was clearly supposed to be an argument about what the Bible says by making the argument that the Bible isn't actually true?
I don't know what this is supposed to tell me. Your K lacks a RotB, an Impact, and an Alt. As it stands now, your argument is more closely related to a trick.
I understand why people run this kind of stuff against poorly-worded resolutions occasionally (hell, even I have done it) because it makes people write a better res, but the "mil means thousand" stuff is not necessary.
If everyone did it, debates would become very boring and would detract from the interesting substantive issues which are part of what make debating an enjoyable experience in the first place.
An excellent reply, I must say: it's simple, dismissive, and to the point. I see that you're really trying to emphasize the contrast between my long, boring, and meandering blocks of text and your brief, unenthusiastic rejoinders of brilliance . When I read it, I understand in my head: "spacetime is so far above me mentally, he won't even engage with me with more than one word". In short, your response is truly deserving of an IQ as high as yours.
Spacetime, please teach us your ways. You clearly have the highest caliber of intellect and IQ on this (intellectual cesspool of a) site. I actually feel my brain growing, just from talking to you. We are all incapable of basic reading comprehension, and must be enlightened by the great swaths of knowledge that you bestow on us pathetic, miserable weaklings. But of course, only if we're worth your time. Your precious, glorious spacetime. I thank you so much for just reading this message. It means a lot to me. Really.
I'm not interested. Maybe I would be more interested if the resolution of the debate was "Israel ought to annex the West Bank", because as it stands now your resolution assumes utilitarianism and the proposition expressed therein, even if true, would not go against the main reason why I oppose an Israeli annexation of the West Bank.
For the record, it's like this for a reason. Debaters can always engage with judges concerning other parts of the clash, and sometimes it's a waste of time to go over parts of it that you don't think are relevant to the RFD.
Nothing I said against TWS was a pivot.
Huh. I guess I did miss the personhood argument. Though I think it is true - as oro said - that round 2 is too little too late for this kind of push.
Fair enough. I guess I tend to operate under the default assumption that someone is not abnormal in X way, even in the absence of evidence that that is the case. But that's more colloquial than logical.
I guess it's technically possible because I can't determine conclusively if anyone is a narcissist or not. But I think it's fair to say that when there's no good evidence someone is a narcissist, they're not a narcissist.
I'm kind of confused. In this comment section I have been defending the idea that biden is not a narcissist; I don't think there's really a compelling inverse argument unless you really expand what it means to be narcissistic. I also don't have time for a debate.
I don't know, you could be right about Trump. He's very abnormal. But I'm always careful about concluding that these public figures are mentally ill.
Sure RM, if you really want to split hairs, maybe if oro made that argument and then screwed it up in the next rounds I still would've voted for Novice. But the whole reason I made my initial comment is because I noticed an immediate and exploitable flaw in the aff that would be hard to come back from. It's not like judges only can be confident in a debate's outcome once the final words have been said.
Yes, in this hypothetical I would've favored the side that made the stronger argument. But that doesn't mean that I'd always vote for Oro no matter what he said, just because he's a "human supremacist".
If the value of humans vs. animals is directly relevant to the resolution, a vote that can put their views on that issue aside is clearly better than one that can't.
If you wouldn't vote for any argument that is "human supremacist", then you probably shouldn't have voted on this debate.
With Trump the case for narcissism is much more compelling, but even there it's unclear since he's a politician and we largely just have his public appearances and statements to go on, which may not reflect his interpersonal personality.
It seems to me that Pro's definition of "slavery" loses the debate on the spot. Con is right that grammatically, the word "another" implies that the person being owned in Pro's definition is a human; therefore, under Pro's definition, animal agriculture cannot be slavery.
Reading Con's R1 though, he kind of mishandles the issue. I think the correct (and kind of tricky) strategy here would have been to wholly concede Pro's definition and then make the argument that it negates the resolution. That takes out Moral Equalization because even if animal agriculture is morally equivalent to slavery, that's insufficient to prove that it is slavery, since slavery is a human-on-human offense. Con has all the right pieces to make this argument, but since he responded to everything and introduced a couple Ks, the point didn't come through.
Now, would people have voted on this argument? I don't know. I would've.
You are pivoting.
An establishment politician changing their opinions on something over like years, or even being dishonest about their opinions, is an incredibly weak indicator of clinical mental disorder. I'm not aware of that much evidence that he's some kind of predator, either, though most of the accusations I've seen are stupid.
If you want to say that narcissism and psychopathy are endemic to politics, that's a more defensible statement, but usually when someone accuses someone of being mentally ill that implies that they are more abnormal than their situation requires them to be. Also, there's a lot of cruel behavior in every social structure, fuck even high school. But I don't think most bullies are psychopaths.
LOL
I guess he "clearly exhibits those traits".... if you say so. But that's easy to claim, so easy an amoeba can claim it.
Can't really prove a negative (and I'd challenge you to prove the positive), but biden is really just an establishment politician, not really a uniquely narcissistic or psychopathic kind of person. There's no evidence to my knowledge that any patterns of grandiosity or callousness in his interpersonal life. The accusations of pedophilia don't seem credible to me, either. Obviously, you could strain to make anyone meet the diagnostic criteria for anything, but that's really not how psychiatry works. Therapists don't check boxes, they look for patterns of dysfunction that seriously affect people's lives, or people come to them with those problems.
I think your perception of the arguments people have on this site as some kind of intellectual pissing contest is kind of silly. Arguments aren't about people.
"Narcissism
Pedophilia
Delusions of grandeur
Anxiety
Anger management
Psychopathy"
I can guarantee you biden meets the criteria for 0% of these. Maybe anxiety. Everyone's anxious.
Name one mental illness you think Biden has.
People with right-wing political views are probably less likely to speak publically about or seek treatment for mental health issues, but they are not necessarily more ill. There have definitely been external disadvantages to the destigmatization of mental health but I think overall it is better that people do not hide these things
Role of the ballot would only be important if your opponent was reading a K, which practically no one reads and it might even be against the Code of Conduct to vote for them. So you didn't need to include it here.
Maybe shells are structured differently in policy... in LD standards would be things like Ground, Clash, Strat Skew, etc. and Voters would be Fairness and Education.
Also shells need voters. The things that you have labelled as voters are actually standards.
Shells need paradigm issues.
PSA is the most beautiful part about Christianity for me. So many ways to interpret it and really no other religion has an analogous concept; it's what sets Christianity apart. Whether it's moral is another question I guess.
In no way did oromagi gish gallop you. He just went through your arguments point-by-point.
"I still scoff at this debate nonetheless because, whether it's with race or sexuality or what have you, it's always the oppressing group portraying the oppressed group as an inconvenience and an annoyance that makes life harder. "
I think you hit the nail on the head here. A lot of the reason why intolerance towards minorities is so on-its-face absurd is the playing victim. Usually there's a 2000+ year history of group A oppressing group B; group B will respond in some way and then group A will act like that response just came out of thin air
"I'm not necessarily saying your way can't win but this crowd here has almost 0 voters on these debaters that are into hiphop itself, they're just taking a dip into the genre so idk if your 'average' is correct"
I think your comment here ended up being true when looking at Ragnar's vote. From his perspective, someone who I don't think listens to much hiphop, I can understand almost all of the criticisms of my songs except for the "Earl uses the n-word to seem edgy" one.
bump
I think that if I take the opposite approach vs yours, that contrast makes the debate more compelling. Plus it gives the people who do vote access to types of rap music that are (usually) only appreciated by people who are deep into hip hop already.
We could always do this again in a situation where I'd pick more conventionally attractive songs if you'd like
I as a judge will not vote on definition abuse.
I think it's pretty clear that they're affirming the res
I understand why in your view there is ground for the "K". But you're not disputing the fact that the intention of the debate was very obvious, and you took advantage of what is at worst a relatively small error (compared to the major errors that make most of these tricky Ks justified) and at best not an error at all to alter the course of the round.
Just because a point may be true doesn't mean that you can cite it in any context. Then we'd never be able to have productive conversations about anything.
That may be true but the debate clearly seems to be about what the Bible says. Not whether it's accurate.
Why deliberately derail a debate that was clearly supposed to be an argument about what the Bible says by making the argument that the Bible isn't actually true?
Allowing him to kritik your argument doesn't solve anything.
I don't know what this is supposed to tell me. Your K lacks a RotB, an Impact, and an Alt. As it stands now, your argument is more closely related to a trick.
I understand why people run this kind of stuff against poorly-worded resolutions occasionally (hell, even I have done it) because it makes people write a better res, but the "mil means thousand" stuff is not necessary.
Never said anything about flashiness. I talked about the importance of discussing substantive issues.
If everyone did it, debates would become very boring and would detract from the interesting substantive issues which are part of what make debating an enjoyable experience in the first place.
You shouldn't run "kritiks" like this, Con.
This debate is going places.
"We will debate over which term of State is acceptable, and whether Palestine fits that definition."
Maybe a better resolution would be "Palestine is a state".
spacetime may or may not be a test I made to see how people on an online debate site respond to the dunning-kruger effect
An excellent reply, I must say: it's simple, dismissive, and to the point. I see that you're really trying to emphasize the contrast between my long, boring, and meandering blocks of text and your brief, unenthusiastic rejoinders of brilliance . When I read it, I understand in my head: "spacetime is so far above me mentally, he won't even engage with me with more than one word". In short, your response is truly deserving of an IQ as high as yours.
Spacetime, please teach us your ways. You clearly have the highest caliber of intellect and IQ on this (intellectual cesspool of a) site. I actually feel my brain growing, just from talking to you. We are all incapable of basic reading comprehension, and must be enlightened by the great swaths of knowledge that you bestow on us pathetic, miserable weaklings. But of course, only if we're worth your time. Your precious, glorious spacetime. I thank you so much for just reading this message. It means a lot to me. Really.
And, as others've pointed out, the res is a truism.
I'm not interested. Maybe I would be more interested if the resolution of the debate was "Israel ought to annex the West Bank", because as it stands now your resolution assumes utilitarianism and the proposition expressed therein, even if true, would not go against the main reason why I oppose an Israeli annexation of the West Bank.
My vote? I didn't vote.
What qualifies as a key argument?
For the record, it's like this for a reason. Debaters can always engage with judges concerning other parts of the clash, and sometimes it's a waste of time to go over parts of it that you don't think are relevant to the RFD.
I suspect that there's an issue with the voting rules on this site. If it helps you to analyze all of the clash, that's totally fine.