I have a couple questions.
First, when you say "Con uses Pro's concession of subjective morality and alludes to their "Identity is Fluid" argument.', what do you mean? It was my belief that C1 and C3 functioned independently of one another.
Second, how did you evaluate C3?
Third, how did you evaluate the attacks I made against Pro's case?
You really gotta step up your trash talk game. You'll need better than "neener neener" to bother me. If my arguments are that god-awful, why didn't you ever respond to them? Surely it couldn't have been that difficult.
Of course. It almost certainly wasn't the fact I made the comment at 3am and I just dont care enough about this debate to write a round that late. But cute attempt at trash talk, btw.
Oh honey, I have a lot of better things to do with my day than give a shit about Selective Service. But I will happily take that pot of gold off your hands, my credit card bill is coming up.
It's a pretty straight-forward question. I'll try to be more clear, though, so my apologies if this comes off as rude.
Your RFD boils down to "Pro made arguments. Con made arguments. Both sides clashed. I wanted to see more. So it's a tie." and doesn't really go any deeper than that. Hence why I want to know how specific arguments influenced this decision. So to make my question really simple:
Did you or did you not evaluate C3? If no, why not? If yes, what weight, if any, did you give the argument? If none, why?
Dude, chill with the psychopath talk. This topic is an old high school debate topic I competed on that I enjoyed and I wanted to do another one. My arguments are almost never a reflection of my actual beliefs.
I mean, the resolution is pretty clearly "Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need." As for weed, I was just playing along with your example, though it was a shitty one to compare to this res in particular.
Then it would be up to the person saying weed is illegal to say which legal code should be the one voters look at and why. That's not my job as con, though.
I'm more angling for the philosophical aspects of this topic, hence it being under the philosophy category, but those are certainly interesting thoughts.
Also, I just realized how ingenious your short description when you're looking at this debate from the debate search list is. To just put the side that the person taking the debate will be before they even have to open it up is actually genius. I'm stealing it for all my future debates.
Honestly I think you would've been better off making another argument than gender inequality. It's hard to quantify it into something that fits into the way this res is set up. You could go for an oppression bad route but how do you rank that between developed nations?
I'll read through this. But from R1 I can already tell Pro needs to learn what impact calc is and how to do it. It'd turn his lackluster case into a decent one.
Implying pre-fiat cant generate benefits and harms. If you look at benefits and harms in a strictly utilitarian sense then yes, since util is necessarily post fiat. But there are definitely good ways of generating pre-fiat offense
That's not really mean what I mean by internal premise, at least not in the way you're articulating it. Take my capitalism example with UBIs. If you're advocating for UBIs, it rests on the presumption that as a society we want more cap. If cap is actually a bad thing, why would we want something that brings more cap? In short, I may not have been clear in my explanation. The internal premise you're targeting needs to be one that is a negative premise to hold i.e. cap is good when you argue that it's really bad. That's how kritiks generate offense.
I mean, it's certainly doable to run kritiks that have post-fiat impacts. I don't personally like them because they're boring, but they work.
As for your example, it seems more like an indict to the argument's solvency rather than a kriticism. His argument doesn't lead to the world he wants to make, so it's pointless to go down that path. Sound right?
Not quite what a pre-fiat kritik is. Kritiks in general are arguments that question certain premises and assumptions made in either your opponent's case or the resolution in general. For example, a kritikal argument I could make as Con would be to say that capitalism is #theworstthingever, and thus we should reject UBIs as an instance of promoting cap.
"1. No kritiks."
You're no fun...
He said your argument functioned *like* a concession, not that you conceded.
Thanks for the votes!
@sigma
I have a couple questions.
First, when you say "Con uses Pro's concession of subjective morality and alludes to their "Identity is Fluid" argument.', what do you mean? It was my belief that C1 and C3 functioned independently of one another.
Second, how did you evaluate C3?
Third, how did you evaluate the attacks I made against Pro's case?
Holy shit you two, just get a room already.
You really gotta step up your trash talk game. You'll need better than "neener neener" to bother me. If my arguments are that god-awful, why didn't you ever respond to them? Surely it couldn't have been that difficult.
Of course. It almost certainly wasn't the fact I made the comment at 3am and I just dont care enough about this debate to write a round that late. But cute attempt at trash talk, btw.
Oh honey, I have a lot of better things to do with my day than give a shit about Selective Service. But I will happily take that pot of gold off your hands, my credit card bill is coming up.
Maybe if I was still in 7th grade, maybe. It did get a solid giggle out of me, though.
Shit, if that's the case then how can I win? Might as well concede now lol.
Holy racial hatred Batman.
"And Nike deals."
A'ight. That one was good.
<3 you tej
I mean, I never asked him to change his vote. I just wanted some elaboration.
Just C3 is fine, like I've been asking.
It's a pretty straight-forward question. I'll try to be more clear, though, so my apologies if this comes off as rude.
Your RFD boils down to "Pro made arguments. Con made arguments. Both sides clashed. I wanted to see more. So it's a tie." and doesn't really go any deeper than that. Hence why I want to know how specific arguments influenced this decision. So to make my question really simple:
Did you or did you not evaluate C3? If no, why not? If yes, what weight, if any, did you give the argument? If none, why?
That doesn't answer my question >.> it kind of feels like you're intentionally dodging the question tbh
"Do you mean C3 specifically? Or how it ties into the whole debate?"
I want to know how you evaluated C3 in your voting decision.
Thanks for the vote. Two questions:
1. What, in your eyes, would've been better extensions?
2. How did you evaluate C3?
Dude, chill with the psychopath talk. This topic is an old high school debate topic I competed on that I enjoyed and I wanted to do another one. My arguments are almost never a reflection of my actual beliefs.
Enjoy your christmas.
A friendly reminder that you have less than 12 hours to post your final round.
I'm starting to get real tired of everyone calling anything that's vaguely philosophical a k.
You're debating if its okay to put pineapple on pizza. Why are you even bothering with a BoP?
Its objectively not, just so we're clear.
What you said was also incorrect. Ragnar's vote hits the nail on the head as to why.
I'm aware. I'm not saying it's a bad k. I'm saying it's just straight up not a k.
Re-voted if you wish to check.
Almost gave conduct to the wrong side. #whoops
I mean, the resolution is pretty clearly "Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need." As for weed, I was just playing along with your example, though it was a shitty one to compare to this res in particular.
Then it would be up to the person saying weed is illegal to say which legal code should be the one voters look at and why. That's not my job as con, though.
There is no "context" to the debate. There's a topic. Its pro's job to affirm the topic and con's job to negate the topic.
Are you asking me what I plan on arguing?
The pro is certainly free to make an argument for whatever moral theory they believe should be used.
"Pros attempted Kritik..."
No. There was no k here. Not even close.
I'm more angling for the philosophical aspects of this topic, hence it being under the philosophy category, but those are certainly interesting thoughts.
Also, I just realized how ingenious your short description when you're looking at this debate from the debate search list is. To just put the side that the person taking the debate will be before they even have to open it up is actually genius. I'm stealing it for all my future debates.
Awh shit, this one be interesting.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/21/Appeal-to-Authority
Literally your entire case.
You got so lucky that there wasnt really any debate to be had. Your case was abysmal.
Oh you for sure want to change the wording of the res before someone snipes this for a free win.
Honestly I think you would've been better off making another argument than gender inequality. It's hard to quantify it into something that fits into the way this res is set up. You could go for an oppression bad route but how do you rank that between developed nations?
Pretty sure I know where I'm voting. But gonna sleep and give it one last look over tomorrow before I vote.
Also, I agree with Ragnar that the format both sides went with for their rounds feels super fucky.
I'll read through this. But from R1 I can already tell Pro needs to learn what impact calc is and how to do it. It'd turn his lackluster case into a decent one.
Implying pre-fiat cant generate benefits and harms. If you look at benefits and harms in a strictly utilitarian sense then yes, since util is necessarily post fiat. But there are definitely good ways of generating pre-fiat offense
That's not really mean what I mean by internal premise, at least not in the way you're articulating it. Take my capitalism example with UBIs. If you're advocating for UBIs, it rests on the presumption that as a society we want more cap. If cap is actually a bad thing, why would we want something that brings more cap? In short, I may not have been clear in my explanation. The internal premise you're targeting needs to be one that is a negative premise to hold i.e. cap is good when you argue that it's really bad. That's how kritiks generate offense.
Your argument wouldn't be a kritik, though. No internal premises are being challenged, and no alternative is presented. It'd be a standard rebuttal.
As for the example, outside of it just being a bad argument, I'm not sure there's a technical name for it.
I mean, it's certainly doable to run kritiks that have post-fiat impacts. I don't personally like them because they're boring, but they work.
As for your example, it seems more like an indict to the argument's solvency rather than a kriticism. His argument doesn't lead to the world he wants to make, so it's pointless to go down that path. Sound right?
Not sure what pre-fiat in this instance is supposed to mean since pretty much every k operates pre-fiat
Not quite what a pre-fiat kritik is. Kritiks in general are arguments that question certain premises and assumptions made in either your opponent's case or the resolution in general. For example, a kritikal argument I could make as Con would be to say that capitalism is #theworstthingever, and thus we should reject UBIs as an instance of promoting cap.
Let me know if you guys have any questions about my RFD or the debate overall.
I'll try to get to this tomorrow.