So, sarcastic embellishments and reddit-ness aside, the central thrust of your argument - that real world conditions are hard to link to moral theory, might be a legitimate concern if, and only if, one cannot see a clear causal relationship between theory and praxis. Neoliberalism prefers a capitalist social ontology (to live up to the market's expectations and requirements). Its central figures in the US and abroad were behind the push to deregulate the economies of the Global South. Therefore, the social or moral theory of neoliberalism can be said to have played a role in the Global South's deregulation. There is a clear causal connection.
But this doesn't at all relate to my argument. I argue for a weighing mechanism that, by determining the real-world effects of a plan, we determine its moral quality. You might disagree with my real-world effects, and had my opponent said so, I would have to contend with their version of events that would transpire after the passage of the resolution. But my opponent's version of events, as would Peter Singer's assumes that people actually donate. If they do not, then Singer/ my opponent has no access to their impacts (the drowning baby being saved). That's the argument. It's a double-bind. If donating to NGOs only alleviated poverty in theory, and not in practice, the entire syllogism that Singer works with collapses. How can "saving the drowning baby" be a defense of effective altruism if people don't actually save the baby?
If philosophy, theory, or criticism does not relate to the real world, it is essentially useless. I disagree with Peter Singer - a figure that Pro relies on primarily - but if Singer posed his argument without consideration of real-world conditions, it would a) not be persuasive, and b) not be published.
Incidentally, non-ideal theory is a branch of philosophy that tackles the real-world conditions people actually experience. Charles Mills is one such proponent of non-ideal theory:
"Ethics is concerned with the ideal, so it doesn't have to worry about the actual. But even for mainstream ethics this wouldn't work, since, of course, ought is supposed to imply can: the ideal has to be achievable by humans. 𝐍𝐨𝐫 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐢𝐭 𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐲 𝐛𝐞 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐦𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐢𝐬 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐲 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐦𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐛𝐞𝐚𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐟𝐮𝐥 𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐬, 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧. If any ethicist actually said this, it would be an astonishing abdication of the classic goal of ethics, and its link with practical reason" (p. 171).
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3811121?seq=7
If theory can do away with the real world, then it is reduced to pseudo-intellectual masturbation. Theory is moving in the direction of actual people's lives (through ethnographies, for example, and one should look at Zacka, Bargu, Pachirat, etc., for this type of work) and it is doing so for the better.
My argument is that if we are going to assess any moral theory, it ought to be tested in accordance with real world conditions. When a moral system is adopted, it will produce moral or immoral results (perhaps amoral too), and thus directly bear on the moral system itself. If I support that the death penalty is good because of some a priori logical reasoning (the government has an obligation to protect us, and so it ought to put dangerous people to death), but I ignore a posteriori facts pertaining to the number of innocent people executed, then I have to contend with the product of the moral principle (the number of innocent people executed) to determine whether it holds that the death penalty ought to be put in place/ is moral.
In this case: Pro uses a syllogism to establish, a priori, that there are moral reasons for supporting effective altruism (the moral proposition). I argue that if people actually adopted and acted on this moral proposition in practice, there would be devastating economic effects (a posteriori facts). That's my first contention.
So, it's not "ought to = will do" but "whether we ought to do something can be determined by the real-world effects it produces a posteriori assuming that this moral principle is put in place." Hence, I have access to impacts. Otherwise, Pro and Con are both divested of impacts (Pro cannot claim that he will save "the drowning baby" since people can choose not to - obviously the drowning baby standing in for international poverty).
I'm not saying that this isn't a contestable framework, I just don't see what your point is.
Do you want me to wait a little before posting to give you some more time? I started my rebuttal, will probably get done today, and I can post it tomorrow to give you another day to look at my args.
Con’s case was straightforward too.
His first gripe concerns court clog. For Pro’s point to work, this necessarily must happen. If there is no clog, then prosecutors can’t “pick and choose” which cases to pursue and which ones to abandon. The impacts are myriad, but not all of them are necessarily quantified. They aren’t necessarily refuted either (especially the ones about lost jobs and houses). The public defender point is probably the most devastating for Pro. As Con mentions, public defenders are not entirely efficacious due to their monumental case load (which Pro no doubt adds to). If Pro contends that exercising your right to trial is paramount, then saddling people with overworked and ill-equipped defense teams doesn’t seem in line with the ethos of having a “fair trial” colloquially speaking. Putting aside my observation about Pro’s “right to trial” rhetoric, the harms of overworked indigent counsel are blatant. Pro tries to double down on his “minor offense” point in response, but again, it lacks a substantive causal mechanism.
Con also claims that plea bargains are useful tools for catching co-conspirators and corporate criminals. This point, while not linked to Con’s criterion, delinks Pro’s case from their criterion. Pro necessarily disallows plea bargains even when they would catch ne’er do wells, which violates the principle of proportionality by letting affluent malefactors free. No punishment at all is not proportionate to the corporate crimes described by Con. Plea bargains are also shown to be used on an overwhelming majority of corporate anti-trust cases, so this impact has significant breadth.
Pro, I feel like you need to bring up your case more often. There were lots of potential turns here, and the Alaska evidence was one such example of a potential turn. The third contention, too, could have provided vital offense. But, at the end of the day, I must weigh the significant court clog point higher. Its effects are broad, and it remains relatively unscathed at the end of the day. Moreover, because I buy Con’s criterion, I can see how the choice of plea bargaining relates to autonomy, and crucially, I know why autonomy should matter in the debate.
What really clinched this for me was Pro’s dubious casual mechanism, which is a shame because I really wanted it to function. It has evidence, and it’s something I never considered before. Unfortunately, Con’s scrutiny forces me to doubt its veracity. Had Pro called back to his data and compared his plan to Alaska’s “informal” system of plea bargaining, I think Pro’s case might have won me over. As it stands now, however, Con presents numerous concrete impacts while Pro presents very little offense besides a dropped contention and “it’s coercive,” the latter of which doesn’t carry too much tangible weight and is shown to be non-unique.
Therefore, I must vote Con.
Now I face my own “Hobson’s choice.” It really doesn’t matter for the purpose of this debate, but if I must go with a criterion, I suppose it better be Con’s. I don’t like that part of Con’s case is unlinked from autonomy. That said, Pro never really answered the turn on his criterion, that white-collar criminals become exempt from punishment under Pro’s plan, which isn’t proportional in the least. Moreover, Pro musters a lot of time and energy defending his criterion, a lot of which seems convincing.
Onto the bulk of the cases.
Pro presents straightforward points. His final contention is kind of ignored throughout the debate, but I wouldn’t offer it much weight, to begin with. Sure, proportional punishment grants victims of rape closure and psychological benefits, but how do I weigh this against wait times in prison and fewer people being arrested for minor crimes? In all fairness, Pro claims that people who “get away” with rape by getting a lesser sentence are more likely to re-offend, but this point isn’t quantified, and neither was the point about the psychological effect on rape victims. With little to no mention of this contention later, I am inclined to discount it from the debate. Even if I did consider it, it wouldn’t have been a game-changer.
Pro’s first contention concerned the coercion inherent to plea bargaining. This point is relatively solid, and I especially like the point about innocent people pleading guilty. Con doesn’t really challenge that this happens, so I flow it across the debate. The only problem is that it’s unquantified, so I don’t know how it weighs against the slew of quantified problems proffered by Con.
As for the second contention, I need a causal mechanism for it to function. I understand that prosecutors face a caseload surge that forces their hands, but Con raised a lot of doubt here. Remember, you presented evidence from Alaska. Double down on it when Con rejects this contention.
Con’s refutation was quite potent though. First, Pro became confused about how his mechanism worked. Remember the mechanism is not that police officers change their arrest patterns, it’s that prosecutors pick and choose which cases to take to court, and they’ll inevitably choose cases involving violent crime. Second, Con’s point about how much Pro depends on all the ducks aligning themselves in a row is persuasive. How do we know that prosecutors won’t just wait out the backlog? If they get bonuses for convictions, wouldn’t they convict as many people as possible irrespective of the clogged prisons?
The evidence provided by Pro came from Alaska, and Con successfully showed that plea bargaining continues “informally” in the state. So, maybe the above is nullified. The fact that Pro never mentioned his data after the first round tells me that Pro might have been worried about it being piddled on, but there were responses. If anything, Pro’s plan emulates Alaska’s informal system of plea bargains by preserving the right for people to plead guilty without the formal promise of a reduced sentence.
I’ll start with framing.
Pro’s and Con’s criteria are essentially white noise in the debate to me. Why? Because so much of both cases skirt around the criteria. I get that Pro’s case relates tenuously to proportionality. It makes sense that marijuana use should not carry with it significant jail time, but then, as Con points out, white-collar criminals getting away scot-free violates this principle of proportionality (which plea bargaining solves for by incentivizing members of organized crime or the corporate elite to “turn” on their miscreant partners), and as Pro himself points out, plea bargains secure lesser (perhaps even “fairer”) sentences.
Con also struggles a little to integrate his criterion and case too. His second contention makes nary a passing mention of autonomy. I’ll grant that the autonomy of alleged offenders is important in the debate, but a criterion is supposed to be a method of achieving your value. If you don’t integrate “autonomy” with justice in both of your contentions, that implies to me that there are better methods with which one can achieve “justice” in this debate. I’m still weighing the 2nd contention in the round, though, since it undermined Pro’s criterion, and because I can vaguely see how it relates to justice as defined by Con. Also, I do feel that Pro, while his objections are mostly answered, is correct when he describes the plea-bargaining system as a “Hobson’s choice.” Indigent defendants don’t have the luxury of decent counsel, so they naturally will plead guilty to avoid an impending sentence since their other option is relying on overworked, underpaid public defenders. I feel like Con bolsters this link story with all his data on how little time public defenders receive to prepare a case.
Con points out that sans the plea bargain option, there is measurably less autonomy in Pro’s world because his advocacy removes a choice that could spell the difference between years of pretrial detention and a reduced sentence. I guess this works as a defense, but it doesn’t address the fact that there is relatively little autonomy in either world. That said, the minute margin of autonomy preserved by Con prevents pretrial detention problems. Con presents myriad impacts, including a loss of employment and housing, all of which link to pretrial detention and autonomy. Con also mentions that external circumstances affect deals all the time in and out of the criminal justice system, so Pro’s objection to his criterion is non-unique.
1. https://unplannedpregnancy.com/abortion/making-your-abortion-decision/why-do-women-get-abortions/
2. https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2005/reasons-us-women-have-abortions-quantitative-and-qualitative-perspectives
3. https://www.drugabuse.gov/drug-topics/opioids/opioid-overdose-crisis#:~:text=The%20Centers%20for%20Disease%20Control,treatment%2C%20and%20criminal%20justice%20involvement.
4. https://docdro.id/yhHJUPu will open as pdf
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: [FLRW] // Mod action: [Removed]
>Reason for Decision: String theory shows that there is no God.
>Reason for Mod Action: Pursuant to the Voting Policy, full-forfeit debates fall under moderation only when a user votes for the forfeiting side. Unfortunately, the argument and source point allocations are not adequately explained. Moreover, the vote contains information from outside of the debate. To access the Voting Policy, scroll to the bottom of the site and click on "Code of Conduct" and then navigate to the Voting Policy section or use the link I've included at the bottom of this post. I apologize for the inconvenience, but feel free to cast your vote again when the RFD conforms with the Voting Policy standards.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: [Conway] // Mod action: [Removed]
>Reason for Decision:
Pro made a simple argument that throughout their ordeal convicted criminals need not be tortured.
The CIA operative Con cites could not justify torture.
- "One senior officer said to me that this is something you really have to think deeply about," the former agent said, adding he "struggled with it morally."
- Kiriakou conceded his position might be hypocritical and said that the technique was useful -- even if he wanted to distance himself from it.
- "Waterboarding was an important technique, and some of these other techniques were important in collecting the information," he said. "But I personally didn't want to do it. I didn't think it was right in the long run, and I didn't want to be associated with it."
Relevant words you will not find in the CNN article: Guilty, Convicted
All I know is that the informant was scheduled to be tortured because of their association and presumed intelligence.
_________
Pro opened up by framing an image of supervillains torturing innocent people for their gain. Please do not waste time of the person you are debating with.
Pro did not take time to proofread their argument in round 2.
>Reason for Mod Action: To award spelling and grammar points, the Voting Policy explicitly mentions that the voter must provide clear evidence that the spelling mistakes were excessive, they must provide examples of the mistakes, and they must compare both participants' grammar. To award conduct points, the voter must (1) identify specific instances of misconduct, (2) explain how this misconduct was excessive, unfair, or in breach of the debate's rules, and (3) compare each debater's conduct. As for argument point allocation, the voter must weigh both debaters' arguments and counterarguments. Only one source was mentioned in the RFD and none of the arguments are weighed. I apologize for the late removal, but this vote does not meet the minimum guidelines outlined in the Voting Policy which I will link here:
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: [seldiora] // Mod action: [Removed]
>Reason for Decision: Tied vote. Fauxlaw tries to show that the eternal nature of the universe means God made it out of matter and energy, while Con showed reasonable possibility that it could have been from nothing. It's difficult to say for sure if the impact of Pro outweighs the ideas of Con, especially since con didn't uphold shared burden that well, focusing instead on refuting Pro's arguments.
>Reason for Mod Action: I apologize for the late vote removal. Nonetheless, this vote must be removed on the grounds that the points are not explained sufficiently per the Voting Policy. To whit: "A sufficient vote is one that states why one debater was better than the other in a particular respect and explains why the voter thought that. The last part of that definition is crucial. It is not sufficient to merely state that "Pro had better arguments", because nothing in that statement explains why Pro had better arguments."
You must explain why Con showed "reasonable possibility" that the world was created ex nihilo. Without explaining why Con presented a reasonable possibility, the statement is an ipse dixit. Also, you need to explain why Con doesn't uphold his burden. Again, I apologize for the inconvenience. Feel free to cast the vote again once you meet the requirements.
************************************************************************
I'm pretty sure Whiteflame said he wanted to write you the endorsement. For what it's worth, here's mine.
"This is singlehandedly the hardest debate I ever undertook in terms of preparation and effort exerted. Bsh1 is a prodigious debater who effortlessly extinguishes effectual arguments with sterling evidence and analysis. It was a great privilege to debate him."
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Intelligence_06 // Mod action: [Not Removed]
>Reason for Decision: Again, Seldiora is arguing as if it is basically a truism that he WILL defeat Oromagi, which is disproven.
1. No matter how good at rapping Seldiora is, he cannot predict the future. There is a chance(even if slim) that he will be banned and/or hit by a mining truck before he can post his first-round verse, no offense. Oromagi perfectly pointed out that it is NOT a truism that his opponent will defeat him because no one can predict the future.
2. Con pointed out that he might not even accept such a rap battle. There is an old saying that says "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take", and the same goes otherwise, if you don't try, you will not lose any. If Oro doesn't even bother to try to do so, then of course he will not lose.
Overall I give the arguments point to Oromagi, the absolute mad legend he is, no offense to Pro.
>Reason for Mod Action: The minimum requirements of the Voting Policy were met.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: [Not Removed]
>Reason for Decision: Sources from both sides were pretty weak and this is the only reason they are tied. Con solely used Wikipedia definitions as his showmanship of sourcing but the reason I feel it would be wrong to vote Pro for sourcing is that while Pro uses his sources better (to back up actual evidence supporting his experience as a poet and rapper) it doesn't really help when your actual source is a deviantart profile and a noteflight profile. The 'rapgamenow' again was a not entirely reliable source and was only used to discuss that you improve at rapping over time. So... I leave it tied out of mutual failure to meet the standard.
Conduct was kind of towards Pro because Con baited Pro via the debate's comments into thinking that Con was going to argue he'd never accept a rap battle. In the end, Con ends up admitting he'd never accept a rap battle anyway but says the reason is:
"CON argues that non-debate competitions in the DEBATEART venue lessens the quality of debates overall and reflects talents irrelevant to our present mission of high quality debate."
So... It was very clearly a bait and switch which ended up being irrelevant as the bait and switch reversed itself when Con admits he'd not accept a rap battle but denies it's out of fear (it is out of fear and everyone on this site knows who he fears will accept it).
Now for the arguments.
In this debate only Pro discusses who would win in the rap battle, Con keeps saying that Pro fails to prove that he has concrete probability to win. Con uses Wikipedia to justify that burden of proof is initially on the one making the positive claim and that therefore Pro autoloses if he can't prove Con's incompetence at rap but this isn't how burden of proof works and Pro points this out during the following Rounds.
Con's argument that rap battles reduce the quality of debates on DART is also irrelevant because if you analyse this entire debate's title and description, it doesn't specify that it would need to be Rated on here, nor that the rap battle itself would be held on DART. What it does do is state that the users on DART are the two engaging in it.
While this seems like me inferring things that Pro didn't point out, it is Con's fault for continually trying to make this debate about whether or not rap battles are okay to host and to say he'd never accept it out of a concern for DART's quality of debates. This never held any weight whatsoever by default, since the rap battle is never said to be hosted on DART.
It is further evident that Pro understands this flaw since in his Round 1 he looks to other websites to bring in evidence of his own rapping ability. This displays comprehension that this is not in a 'bubble of DART' but about the users on DART's overall rapping ability.
On top of this, it is confusing why Oromagi keeps pretending that there's 0% proof. When he has dodged nonstop rap battles on the website despite being one of the most active debaters, we have a large sample size to infer he is insecure about his ability to win them. Just because he says he isn't and says that it's his worry about the integrity of DART debates doesn't somehow nullify that Pro has completely explained how the LACK OF EVIDENCE does INDEED support his burden of proof given how active Oromagi has otherwise been. What we can see is that the other person in the rap battle claims himself to have experience in it, meaning that if anything is the default position for burden of proof, it's the one lacking a résumé who has a lot more to prove if he is to conquer the other candidate in the eyes of the judge.
Oromagi's points all revolve around two things:
1) Burden of proof is initially on Pro.
2) Oromagi denies avoiding rap battles out of fear.
Seldiora's points all revolve around two things:
1) Burden of proof is shifted onto Con due to only Pro's candidate having displayed experience in rapping in a competitive environment.
2) Con not only has burden of proof shifted onto them, he has stacked evidence against him given his repeated avoidance of rap battles in spite of his duration of site-use and rate of activity during that duration.
I do not comprehend Con's case, especially since in Round 1 he attacks Pro for claiming that Con is going to avoid a rap battle at any cost only to later in the very same Round admit that he would but scapegoats the reason as DART quality of debates which is irrelevant as the rap battle never was stated to be a rated DART debate.
>Reason for Mod Action: The RFD meets the requirements under the Voting Policy.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: [Removed]
>Reason for Decision: Argument: Pro's arguments did not withstand the rebuttals by Con. Pro's first round argument was entirely contained within a link outside the debate with no commentary by Pro. Bad form. Conversely, Con's arguments were mostly criticized, but lacked credence by rebuttal, and mostly failed in the attempt. Con's arguments, by contrast, could not be successfully rebutted by Pro, as Con demonstrated in his round 5.
Sources: Pro's sources were biases, inconclusive and self-contradicting. Example: Peta founder was demonstrated to criticize pet ownership, yet engage in proxie pet care, as Con demonstrated. Con's sources were credible and consistent in their messages.
S&G: Tie
Conduct: Pro's first and last rounds did not meet standard expectation. Con was professional and credible in all rounds.
>Reason for Mod Action: While the reasoning for the points awarded is fine, per the Voting Policy, there needs to be explicit mention of at least one argument/counterargument to award argument points. In addition, there needs to be explicit mention of what Pro did to warrant him losing conduct points. I actually agree with your analysis, for the record, and I am sorry for the inconvenience.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Rational Madman // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 4 points Pro
>Reason for Decision:
What about Con's BoP to prove he's as pro-life as he thinks he is?
Where was hit burden of proof met? Asinine trolling amd cowardice plague this debate. Pro consistently requests Con to prove that he is actually Pro-life and has actively opposed euthanasia and abortion through actions. All Con does is lost a syllogism to prove he thinks he is pro-life.
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote failed to check all the necessary boxes pursuant to the Voting Guidelines. Specifically, There are three criteria that need to be met for Conduct points to be awarded:
Provide specific references to instances of poor conduct which occurred in the debate
Demonstrate how this poor conduct was either excessive, unfair, or in violation of mutually agreed upon rules of conduct pertaining to the text of the debate
Compare each debater's conduct from the debate
None of these criteria are met.
Argument points also fail to meet specific criteria. I need to know why Con's arguments/counterarguments were insufficient per the Voting Policy clauses listed below:
Survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate
Weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself)
Explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points.
My apologies for the inconvenience.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ragnar // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 3 to Con
>Reason for Decision: Pro may as well have argued that con would use English. The only way he could be considered to have won, is if someone did not read con's case and bought that it was con who pulled Aristotle into the debate... Which while I do understand to be a tactic to try to make con attack his credibility, he does a much better job at that himself. I do not notice con making any emotional appeals. Con of course does use logic, but con defends this as a mode of argument rather than a specific argument utilizing it.
I write this as someone who regularly predicts arguments within debates, to pre-refute them. This is a fun idea for a debate, but con showed a clear path through it (and I don't notice pro arguing that con would use off topic arguments).
>Reason for Mod Action: This vote doesn't really include weighing as defined in the Voting Policy. I apologize for the inconvenience, but i just need one sentence explaining why the ethos pathos and logos arguments win it for Con. I get that it does, it's just not explained in the RFD.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw// Mod action: [Not Removed]
>Points Awarded: 6 points Con
>Reason for Decision: Argument: The flaw in Pro's argument comes out of the r1 first referenced source, the first sentence of which states: "Within the Trivium the goal of argumentative writing is to persuade your audience that your ideas are valid, or more valid than someone else’s." The trivium being, in this case, "Credibility, Emotion, Logic." The key phrase that Pro misses is that, as Con argued, the trivium are not, in themselves, arguments, but as the title of the article suggests, are modes of appeal: used to convince an audience "...that your ideas are valid..." The appeals are the tone of argumentative writing, but not the content. Pro's debate proposal that "I can predict my opponents future arguments in this debate" clearly announces his ability ["I can"] to predict not the mode of argument, but the argument content. But Pro does not predict the argument content of Con's in r2 or in r3. Points to Con.
Sources: Pro offered two sources, both in r1; the first, as noted above in "arguments" was misread as a supporting source. The second source was also misread. It dealt with how emotion motivates, but it is the action one is motivated to do that is the key to the story, and not what the young hero felt about it. The article is clear in this distinction, and Pro overlooked it. Whereas, Con is true to his sources. They are relevant to his arguments related to the Cambrian Explosion [r2] and wetness [r3]. Points to Con
S&G: Tie
Conduct: Pro's insistence on having won the debate in r2, a preliminary round, plus wasting effort to rebut and defend through r3 and r4 shows arrogance and overt-confidence. Point to Con
>Reason for Mod Action:
While brief, the voter meets the requirements under the Voting Policy.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: K_Michael // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 3 Con, 2 Pro
>Reason for Decision:
The argument "what manipulation of the genome may have occurred after 50,000 years ago is not in the scope of this debate" is blatantly false, as Con points out. The "entire human genome," includes all examples of the species, even those after 50,000 years ago, by definition. Since Pro concedes the existence of interspecies breeding, he by extension conceded the point.
Arguments to Pro.
Con only used a single Wikipedia article as a cited source. Pro not only uses more official sources, especially https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK22110/, which is a government organization, but also has more sources.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter fails to sufficiently explain a) how the sources strengthened or weakened the arguments presented and b) how the sources used impacted the debate. Both of these are required under the Voting Policy. I'm sorry for any inconvenience.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: [Not Removed]
>Points Awarded: 5 points Con
>Reason for Decision: We'll try this once again, and I caution any detractors to review voting policy, as I will cite why I voted as I did from the policy. I appreciate Blamonkey for accepting my appeal against removal of my original vote.
Argument: Points to Con. The significant bone of contention re: should/can/will, with "should" defined by pro in round 1, then the attempt by Pro to expand by can/should in round 2, was successfully rebutted by Con in all rounds, first by limiting should by demonstration that can or will were even possible. When an action cannot happen, its "should" capability is strangled, and can/will become mere talking points without effectivity, as Con argued through the balance of rounds. Further, pro's argument in round 1 that IHR's regulations require "communicate... timely... information" to WHO has no enforcement teeth because "timely" is not a measurable, as Con argued in round 1 rebuttal. I contend my original vote not only did not violate policy, but was a reasoned development based on the logic of "should" as defined by Pro, as opposed to "can" or "will." "Should" is limited by "can" simply because "can" defines the parameters, not "should." I should be able to exact an eye for an eye against my neighbor for killing my dog which left a package in my neighbor's front yard, but the law dictates both the nature and the timing of my ability to exact revenge. It is legally not up to me. Just so, as Con argued, international law lacks the means to allow "should" to occur. It is a skillful rebuttal by Con both by argument and sourcing. Pro never overcame the argument that the law prevails, even by its lack. Because there is no international law, as Con argued, "can" is removed from the table, rendering "should" disabled. From the3 voting policy: "Weighing entails analyzing how the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments outweighed (that is, out-impacted) and/or precluded another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole."
Sources: Points to Con. Relative to my original vote on sourcing, pro's round 1 quote from “China's top political commission in charge of law and order" that “anyone who deliberately delays and hides the reporting of [virus] cases out of his or her own self-interest will be nailed on the pillar of shame for eternity" sounds convincing as if China is running upon its sword, but a little research into Pro's source for the quote finds that, 1. The source is South China Morning Post, a Hong Kong journal with which I am familiar, having logged much time in Hong Kong, 2. That the source is an opinion piece quoting a statement made by China's Central Political and Legal Affairs Commission [the commission to which Pro refers], 3 That the quote is actually out of Chang An Jian, China's official political propaganda vehicle, and 4. That the referenced "pillar of shame" is a protest sculpture on Hong Kong University's grounds, raised against Chinese aggression, and used cleverly by Chang An Jian by reverse psychology, thus weakening pro's source. That's credible sourcing??? Nope.
From the voting policy: "Explain, on balance, how each debater's sources impact the debate. Directly evaluate at least one source in particular cited in the debate and explain how it either bolstered or weakened the argument it was used to support. Must explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's." This is what I have demonstrated in my vote explanation on sourcing.
S&G: Both participant's s&g were good.
Conduct: Both participants conducted themselves profesisonally.
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote is justified per the Voting Policy guidelines.
************************************************************************
So, sarcastic embellishments and reddit-ness aside, the central thrust of your argument - that real world conditions are hard to link to moral theory, might be a legitimate concern if, and only if, one cannot see a clear causal relationship between theory and praxis. Neoliberalism prefers a capitalist social ontology (to live up to the market's expectations and requirements). Its central figures in the US and abroad were behind the push to deregulate the economies of the Global South. Therefore, the social or moral theory of neoliberalism can be said to have played a role in the Global South's deregulation. There is a clear causal connection.
But this doesn't at all relate to my argument. I argue for a weighing mechanism that, by determining the real-world effects of a plan, we determine its moral quality. You might disagree with my real-world effects, and had my opponent said so, I would have to contend with their version of events that would transpire after the passage of the resolution. But my opponent's version of events, as would Peter Singer's assumes that people actually donate. If they do not, then Singer/ my opponent has no access to their impacts (the drowning baby being saved). That's the argument. It's a double-bind. If donating to NGOs only alleviated poverty in theory, and not in practice, the entire syllogism that Singer works with collapses. How can "saving the drowning baby" be a defense of effective altruism if people don't actually save the baby?
If philosophy, theory, or criticism does not relate to the real world, it is essentially useless. I disagree with Peter Singer - a figure that Pro relies on primarily - but if Singer posed his argument without consideration of real-world conditions, it would a) not be persuasive, and b) not be published.
Incidentally, non-ideal theory is a branch of philosophy that tackles the real-world conditions people actually experience. Charles Mills is one such proponent of non-ideal theory:
"Ethics is concerned with the ideal, so it doesn't have to worry about the actual. But even for mainstream ethics this wouldn't work, since, of course, ought is supposed to imply can: the ideal has to be achievable by humans. 𝐍𝐨𝐫 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐢𝐭 𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐲 𝐛𝐞 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐦𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐢𝐬 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐲 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐦𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐛𝐞𝐚𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐟𝐮𝐥 𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐬, 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧. If any ethicist actually said this, it would be an astonishing abdication of the classic goal of ethics, and its link with practical reason" (p. 171).
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3811121?seq=7
If theory can do away with the real world, then it is reduced to pseudo-intellectual masturbation. Theory is moving in the direction of actual people's lives (through ethnographies, for example, and one should look at Zacka, Bargu, Pachirat, etc., for this type of work) and it is doing so for the better.
My argument is that if we are going to assess any moral theory, it ought to be tested in accordance with real world conditions. When a moral system is adopted, it will produce moral or immoral results (perhaps amoral too), and thus directly bear on the moral system itself. If I support that the death penalty is good because of some a priori logical reasoning (the government has an obligation to protect us, and so it ought to put dangerous people to death), but I ignore a posteriori facts pertaining to the number of innocent people executed, then I have to contend with the product of the moral principle (the number of innocent people executed) to determine whether it holds that the death penalty ought to be put in place/ is moral.
In this case: Pro uses a syllogism to establish, a priori, that there are moral reasons for supporting effective altruism (the moral proposition). I argue that if people actually adopted and acted on this moral proposition in practice, there would be devastating economic effects (a posteriori facts). That's my first contention.
So, it's not "ought to = will do" but "whether we ought to do something can be determined by the real-world effects it produces a posteriori assuming that this moral principle is put in place." Hence, I have access to impacts. Otherwise, Pro and Con are both divested of impacts (Pro cannot claim that he will save "the drowning baby" since people can choose not to - obviously the drowning baby standing in for international poverty).
I'm not saying that this isn't a contestable framework, I just don't see what your point is.
Sorry, I don't think I'm going to be able to get to your vote in time. If you want feedback, reach out to me via DM and I'll tell you what I think.
Good debate! You put up a really good fight.
Thank you judge and opponent alike! This was a fun debate and tournament. I'm glad I participated.
Sources
1. https://personal.lse.ac.uk/robert49/teaching/mm/articles/Singer_1972Famine.pdf
2. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/self-fulfilment
3. http://ndl.ethernet.edu.et/bitstream/123456789/45927/1/19.Lindsay%20Whitfield.pdf#page=267
Nope, moral obligations only make sense if we apply them to practice. If people actually internalize them.
R1 Sources
1. https://cheirif.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/hannah-arendt-the-origins-of-totalitarianism-meridian-1962.pdf
2. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/200401468741328803/pdf/multi-page.pdf
3. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/10/does-foreign-aid-always-help-the-poor/
4. http://ndl.ethernet.edu.et/bitstream/123456789/45927/1/19.Lindsay%20Whitfield.pdf#page=267
5. https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/mozambique-wb-destroys-cashew-industry
6. https://www.hrw.org/news/2010/10/25/ethiopia-aid-weapon
7. https://www.hrw.org/report/2010/10/19/development-without-freedom/how-aid-underwrites-repression-ethiopia
8. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/2c087f8b-en/index.html?itemId=/content/component/2c087f8b-en
9. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44257080
10. https://annas-archive.org/md5/02c87dccbdc7e4a95a2166988c152a80
11. https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum-wage/2020/home.htm
12. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7735/
13. https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/consumption_GDP/
14. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X18301621#s0055
15. https://www.bea.gov/news/2022/activities-us-multinational-enterprises-2020
16. https://www.newamericaneconomy.org/issues/hospitality-tourism/#:~:text=Almost%2015%20million%20Americans%20work,largest%20industry%20in%20the%20country.
17. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/low-income-families-spend-40-of-their-money-on-luxuries-2017-06-28
18. https://personal.lse.ac.uk/robert49/teaching/mm/articles/Singer_1972Famine.pdf
19.https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/international-aid-development-ngos-crowding-out-government
20. https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2018/feb/13/ngo-crimes-go-far-beyond-oxfam
21. https://www.propublica.org/article/how-the-red-cross-raised-half-a-billion-dollars-for-haiti-and-built-6-homes
Some might be inaccessible. Let me know if you need access. I can send over via PM.
Thanks!
Oh no! Im sorry to hear that. I hope you feel better.
If you cant cast a vote thats ok.
Thanks for the vote!
I meant to say good debate. I was just super tired last night and forgot. I promise that was not a slight against you or the way you debate.
If this is really your last debate here, I'll miss you.
Thanks for the vote!
Take your time! Also, if at any point you want to redo this when you have more time outside the tourney, let me know.
That's an pretty good idea. Thanks! :)
Cool! Sorry that IRL stuff got in the way. Do you mind if my sources go in the comments? If not, that's cool.
Thanks for the votes!
Do you want me to wait a little before posting to give you some more time? I started my rebuttal, will probably get done today, and I can post it tomorrow to give you another day to look at my args.
Sources
1. https://sci-hub.ru/10.2307/2776752
2. https://thehill.com/homenews/media/3862810-fox-news-hosts-execs-privately-blasted-trump-election-fraud-claims-shared-on-network-court-documents-show/
3. https://www.discoursemagazine.com/culture-and-society/2021/07/28/the-press-now-depends-on-readers-for-revenue-and-thats-a-big-problem-for-journalism/
4. https://qz.com/1932434/is-fox-news-really-losing-viewers-to-newsmax
5. https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Fox-Reply-Dominion.pdf
6. https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2022/70-percent-republicans-falsely-believe-stolen-election-trump/
7. https://edisciplinas.usp.br/pluginfile.php/5537300/mod_resource/content/1/Noam%20Chomsky_%20Edward%20S.%20Herman%20-%20Manufacturing%20Consent_%20The%20Political%20Economy%20of%20the%20Mass%20Media-Bodley%20Head%20%282008%29.pdf
8. https://web.stanford.edu/class/comm1a/readings/bennett-press-state.pdf
9. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1464884916648094
10. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-021-00846-2
11. https://www.cs.vu.nl/~eliens/download/marcuse-one-dimensional-man.pdf
12. https://www.nber.org/digest/oct06/media-bias-and-voting
13. https://web.stanford.edu/class/comm1a/readings/iyengar-redmedia-bluemedia.pdf
14. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10584609.2016.1265619?needAccess=true&role=button
15. https://www.bbc.com/editorialguidelines/guidelines/impartiality/guidelines
Let me know if there's something wrong with my sources access-wise.
It's good to be back! :)
Am I good to put sources in the comments if it won't fit in my case?
Good debate
Thank you for the vote!
Do you mean "owning a self driving car is ethical?"
Oh, my apologies. I didn't realize it was an impact. Still, great debate from both of you.
RFD pt. 3
Con’s case was straightforward too.
His first gripe concerns court clog. For Pro’s point to work, this necessarily must happen. If there is no clog, then prosecutors can’t “pick and choose” which cases to pursue and which ones to abandon. The impacts are myriad, but not all of them are necessarily quantified. They aren’t necessarily refuted either (especially the ones about lost jobs and houses). The public defender point is probably the most devastating for Pro. As Con mentions, public defenders are not entirely efficacious due to their monumental case load (which Pro no doubt adds to). If Pro contends that exercising your right to trial is paramount, then saddling people with overworked and ill-equipped defense teams doesn’t seem in line with the ethos of having a “fair trial” colloquially speaking. Putting aside my observation about Pro’s “right to trial” rhetoric, the harms of overworked indigent counsel are blatant. Pro tries to double down on his “minor offense” point in response, but again, it lacks a substantive causal mechanism.
Con also claims that plea bargains are useful tools for catching co-conspirators and corporate criminals. This point, while not linked to Con’s criterion, delinks Pro’s case from their criterion. Pro necessarily disallows plea bargains even when they would catch ne’er do wells, which violates the principle of proportionality by letting affluent malefactors free. No punishment at all is not proportionate to the corporate crimes described by Con. Plea bargains are also shown to be used on an overwhelming majority of corporate anti-trust cases, so this impact has significant breadth.
Pro, I feel like you need to bring up your case more often. There were lots of potential turns here, and the Alaska evidence was one such example of a potential turn. The third contention, too, could have provided vital offense. But, at the end of the day, I must weigh the significant court clog point higher. Its effects are broad, and it remains relatively unscathed at the end of the day. Moreover, because I buy Con’s criterion, I can see how the choice of plea bargaining relates to autonomy, and crucially, I know why autonomy should matter in the debate.
What really clinched this for me was Pro’s dubious casual mechanism, which is a shame because I really wanted it to function. It has evidence, and it’s something I never considered before. Unfortunately, Con’s scrutiny forces me to doubt its veracity. Had Pro called back to his data and compared his plan to Alaska’s “informal” system of plea bargaining, I think Pro’s case might have won me over. As it stands now, however, Con presents numerous concrete impacts while Pro presents very little offense besides a dropped contention and “it’s coercive,” the latter of which doesn’t carry too much tangible weight and is shown to be non-unique.
Therefore, I must vote Con.
RFD pt. 2
Now I face my own “Hobson’s choice.” It really doesn’t matter for the purpose of this debate, but if I must go with a criterion, I suppose it better be Con’s. I don’t like that part of Con’s case is unlinked from autonomy. That said, Pro never really answered the turn on his criterion, that white-collar criminals become exempt from punishment under Pro’s plan, which isn’t proportional in the least. Moreover, Pro musters a lot of time and energy defending his criterion, a lot of which seems convincing.
Onto the bulk of the cases.
Pro presents straightforward points. His final contention is kind of ignored throughout the debate, but I wouldn’t offer it much weight, to begin with. Sure, proportional punishment grants victims of rape closure and psychological benefits, but how do I weigh this against wait times in prison and fewer people being arrested for minor crimes? In all fairness, Pro claims that people who “get away” with rape by getting a lesser sentence are more likely to re-offend, but this point isn’t quantified, and neither was the point about the psychological effect on rape victims. With little to no mention of this contention later, I am inclined to discount it from the debate. Even if I did consider it, it wouldn’t have been a game-changer.
Pro’s first contention concerned the coercion inherent to plea bargaining. This point is relatively solid, and I especially like the point about innocent people pleading guilty. Con doesn’t really challenge that this happens, so I flow it across the debate. The only problem is that it’s unquantified, so I don’t know how it weighs against the slew of quantified problems proffered by Con.
As for the second contention, I need a causal mechanism for it to function. I understand that prosecutors face a caseload surge that forces their hands, but Con raised a lot of doubt here. Remember, you presented evidence from Alaska. Double down on it when Con rejects this contention.
Con’s refutation was quite potent though. First, Pro became confused about how his mechanism worked. Remember the mechanism is not that police officers change their arrest patterns, it’s that prosecutors pick and choose which cases to take to court, and they’ll inevitably choose cases involving violent crime. Second, Con’s point about how much Pro depends on all the ducks aligning themselves in a row is persuasive. How do we know that prosecutors won’t just wait out the backlog? If they get bonuses for convictions, wouldn’t they convict as many people as possible irrespective of the clogged prisons?
The evidence provided by Pro came from Alaska, and Con successfully showed that plea bargaining continues “informally” in the state. So, maybe the above is nullified. The fact that Pro never mentioned his data after the first round tells me that Pro might have been worried about it being piddled on, but there were responses. If anything, Pro’s plan emulates Alaska’s informal system of plea bargains by preserving the right for people to plead guilty without the formal promise of a reduced sentence.
Here's my RFD pt. 1
I’ll start with framing.
Pro’s and Con’s criteria are essentially white noise in the debate to me. Why? Because so much of both cases skirt around the criteria. I get that Pro’s case relates tenuously to proportionality. It makes sense that marijuana use should not carry with it significant jail time, but then, as Con points out, white-collar criminals getting away scot-free violates this principle of proportionality (which plea bargaining solves for by incentivizing members of organized crime or the corporate elite to “turn” on their miscreant partners), and as Pro himself points out, plea bargains secure lesser (perhaps even “fairer”) sentences.
Con also struggles a little to integrate his criterion and case too. His second contention makes nary a passing mention of autonomy. I’ll grant that the autonomy of alleged offenders is important in the debate, but a criterion is supposed to be a method of achieving your value. If you don’t integrate “autonomy” with justice in both of your contentions, that implies to me that there are better methods with which one can achieve “justice” in this debate. I’m still weighing the 2nd contention in the round, though, since it undermined Pro’s criterion, and because I can vaguely see how it relates to justice as defined by Con. Also, I do feel that Pro, while his objections are mostly answered, is correct when he describes the plea-bargaining system as a “Hobson’s choice.” Indigent defendants don’t have the luxury of decent counsel, so they naturally will plead guilty to avoid an impending sentence since their other option is relying on overworked, underpaid public defenders. I feel like Con bolsters this link story with all his data on how little time public defenders receive to prepare a case.
Con points out that sans the plea bargain option, there is measurably less autonomy in Pro’s world because his advocacy removes a choice that could spell the difference between years of pretrial detention and a reduced sentence. I guess this works as a defense, but it doesn’t address the fact that there is relatively little autonomy in either world. That said, the minute margin of autonomy preserved by Con prevents pretrial detention problems. Con presents myriad impacts, including a loss of employment and housing, all of which link to pretrial detention and autonomy. Con also mentions that external circumstances affect deals all the time in and out of the criminal justice system, so Pro’s objection to his criterion is non-unique.
Thanks for the votes!
No problem. Great debate.
No problem
Sources for the *3rd round*
1. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/10-billion-in-child-support-payments-going-uncollected-according-to-estimates/
2. https://heathbakerlaw.com/can-parents-make-an-agreement-to-waive-child-support/
3. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/193684
4. https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/crc2015_March2017_0.pdf
5. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6182105/
6. https://disa.com/map-of-marijuana-legality-by-state
7. https://www.auajournals.org/doi/10.1097/JU.0000000000000304
8. https://www.hamptonroadslegal.com/faqs/facts-on-divorce-in-america.cfm#:~:text=There%20is%201%20divorce%20approximately,and%20876%2C000%20divorces%20a%20year.
Sources for 2nd round
1. https://unplannedpregnancy.com/abortion/making-your-abortion-decision/why-do-women-get-abortions/
2. https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2005/reasons-us-women-have-abortions-quantitative-and-qualitative-perspectives
3. https://www.drugabuse.gov/drug-topics/opioids/opioid-overdose-crisis#:~:text=The%20Centers%20for%20Disease%20Control,treatment%2C%20and%20criminal%20justice%20involvement.
4. https://docdro.id/yhHJUPu will open as pdf
5. https://www.cdc.gov/stroke/facts.htm#:~:text=Stroke%2Drelated%20costs%20in%20the,billion%20between%202014%20and%202015.&text=This%20total%20includes%20the%20cost,of%20serious%20long%2Dterm%20disability.
6. https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/10123038/PartneredButPoor.pdf
7. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/progress-notes/201902/alarming-effects-childrens-exposure-domestic-violence
8. https://docdro.id/BnxY3iV (will open as PDF, go to table before discussion section)
9. http://dspace.library.uvic.ca/bitstream/handle/1828/6611/Artz_Sibylle_IJCYFS_2014.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
10. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/progress-notes/201902/alarming-effects-childrens-exposure-domestic-violence
11. https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(11)01139-0
12. https://docdro.id/vO0BKqO (open as pdf) (check discussions header and results)
13. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0003122420957249
14. https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-wellbeing-of-children-with-gay-or-lesbian-parents/
15. https://www.peertechzpublications.com/articles/ACMPH-3-128.php
16. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/advances-in-psychiatric-treatment/article/forced-marriage-implications-for-mental-health-and-intellectual-disability-services/AC591C015B16EC5BC736227A00FCDADD
17. https://www.jmhhb.org/temp/JMentalHealthHumBehav20116-1138672_030946.pdf
18. https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2458-14-492
Here are my sources
1. https://assets.aarp.org/rgcenter/general/divorce.pdf
2.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/241745685_Reasons_for_Divorce_and_Openness_to_Marital_Reconciliation
3. https://docdro.id/SyjFo2A (will open as a PDF)
4. https://europeansting.com/2018/07/24/a-bad-marriage-can-be-as-unhealthy-as-smoking-and-drinking/
5. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2014/11/20/a-bad-marriage-can-literally-break-your-heart-especially-if-youre-a-woman/
6. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/316/535
7. https://news.gallup.com/poll/164618/desire-children-norm.aspx
8. https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/vasectomy/about/pac-20384580
9. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/progress-notes/201902/alarming-effects-childrens-exposure-domestic-violence
10. https://docdro.id/BnxY3iV (will open as PDF, go to table before discussion section)
11. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/and.13563
12. https://www.auajournals.org/doi/10.1097/JU.0000000000000304
13. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2739048
14. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/10-billion-in-child-support-payments-going-uncollected-according-to-estimates/
15. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5657867/
16. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2527388
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: [FLRW] // Mod action: [Removed]
>Reason for Decision: String theory shows that there is no God.
>Reason for Mod Action: Pursuant to the Voting Policy, full-forfeit debates fall under moderation only when a user votes for the forfeiting side. Unfortunately, the argument and source point allocations are not adequately explained. Moreover, the vote contains information from outside of the debate. To access the Voting Policy, scroll to the bottom of the site and click on "Code of Conduct" and then navigate to the Voting Policy section or use the link I've included at the bottom of this post. I apologize for the inconvenience, but feel free to cast your vote again when the RFD conforms with the Voting Policy standards.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
************************************************************************
"This is a horrible debate resolution that no intelligible person would accept."
Hold my Capri Sun. It's time for an epic gamer move.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: [Conway] // Mod action: [Removed]
>Reason for Decision:
Pro made a simple argument that throughout their ordeal convicted criminals need not be tortured.
The CIA operative Con cites could not justify torture.
- "One senior officer said to me that this is something you really have to think deeply about," the former agent said, adding he "struggled with it morally."
- Kiriakou conceded his position might be hypocritical and said that the technique was useful -- even if he wanted to distance himself from it.
- "Waterboarding was an important technique, and some of these other techniques were important in collecting the information," he said. "But I personally didn't want to do it. I didn't think it was right in the long run, and I didn't want to be associated with it."
Relevant words you will not find in the CNN article: Guilty, Convicted
All I know is that the informant was scheduled to be tortured because of their association and presumed intelligence.
_________
Pro opened up by framing an image of supervillains torturing innocent people for their gain. Please do not waste time of the person you are debating with.
Pro did not take time to proofread their argument in round 2.
>Reason for Mod Action: To award spelling and grammar points, the Voting Policy explicitly mentions that the voter must provide clear evidence that the spelling mistakes were excessive, they must provide examples of the mistakes, and they must compare both participants' grammar. To award conduct points, the voter must (1) identify specific instances of misconduct, (2) explain how this misconduct was excessive, unfair, or in breach of the debate's rules, and (3) compare each debater's conduct. As for argument point allocation, the voter must weigh both debaters' arguments and counterarguments. Only one source was mentioned in the RFD and none of the arguments are weighed. I apologize for the late removal, but this vote does not meet the minimum guidelines outlined in the Voting Policy which I will link here:
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: [seldiora] // Mod action: [Removed]
>Reason for Decision: Tied vote. Fauxlaw tries to show that the eternal nature of the universe means God made it out of matter and energy, while Con showed reasonable possibility that it could have been from nothing. It's difficult to say for sure if the impact of Pro outweighs the ideas of Con, especially since con didn't uphold shared burden that well, focusing instead on refuting Pro's arguments.
>Reason for Mod Action: I apologize for the late vote removal. Nonetheless, this vote must be removed on the grounds that the points are not explained sufficiently per the Voting Policy. To whit: "A sufficient vote is one that states why one debater was better than the other in a particular respect and explains why the voter thought that. The last part of that definition is crucial. It is not sufficient to merely state that "Pro had better arguments", because nothing in that statement explains why Pro had better arguments."
You must explain why Con showed "reasonable possibility" that the world was created ex nihilo. Without explaining why Con presented a reasonable possibility, the statement is an ipse dixit. Also, you need to explain why Con doesn't uphold his burden. Again, I apologize for the inconvenience. Feel free to cast the vote again once you meet the requirements.
************************************************************************
Sorry for taking a while. College is hectic.
I see people vote on conduct, but I'm pretty sure the CoC explicitly disallows simply voting for conduct alone when only one round was forfeited.
Would either of you object to me voting on this debate? I don't know when I can get around to it, but it's definitely interesting enough of a read.
I'm pretty sure Whiteflame said he wanted to write you the endorsement. For what it's worth, here's mine.
"This is singlehandedly the hardest debate I ever undertook in terms of preparation and effort exerted. Bsh1 is a prodigious debater who effortlessly extinguishes effectual arguments with sterling evidence and analysis. It was a great privilege to debate him."
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Intelligence_06 // Mod action: [Not Removed]
>Reason for Decision: Again, Seldiora is arguing as if it is basically a truism that he WILL defeat Oromagi, which is disproven.
1. No matter how good at rapping Seldiora is, he cannot predict the future. There is a chance(even if slim) that he will be banned and/or hit by a mining truck before he can post his first-round verse, no offense. Oromagi perfectly pointed out that it is NOT a truism that his opponent will defeat him because no one can predict the future.
2. Con pointed out that he might not even accept such a rap battle. There is an old saying that says "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take", and the same goes otherwise, if you don't try, you will not lose any. If Oro doesn't even bother to try to do so, then of course he will not lose.
Overall I give the arguments point to Oromagi, the absolute mad legend he is, no offense to Pro.
>Reason for Mod Action: The minimum requirements of the Voting Policy were met.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: RationalMadman // Mod action: [Not Removed]
>Reason for Decision: Sources from both sides were pretty weak and this is the only reason they are tied. Con solely used Wikipedia definitions as his showmanship of sourcing but the reason I feel it would be wrong to vote Pro for sourcing is that while Pro uses his sources better (to back up actual evidence supporting his experience as a poet and rapper) it doesn't really help when your actual source is a deviantart profile and a noteflight profile. The 'rapgamenow' again was a not entirely reliable source and was only used to discuss that you improve at rapping over time. So... I leave it tied out of mutual failure to meet the standard.
Conduct was kind of towards Pro because Con baited Pro via the debate's comments into thinking that Con was going to argue he'd never accept a rap battle. In the end, Con ends up admitting he'd never accept a rap battle anyway but says the reason is:
"CON argues that non-debate competitions in the DEBATEART venue lessens the quality of debates overall and reflects talents irrelevant to our present mission of high quality debate."
So... It was very clearly a bait and switch which ended up being irrelevant as the bait and switch reversed itself when Con admits he'd not accept a rap battle but denies it's out of fear (it is out of fear and everyone on this site knows who he fears will accept it).
Now for the arguments.
In this debate only Pro discusses who would win in the rap battle, Con keeps saying that Pro fails to prove that he has concrete probability to win. Con uses Wikipedia to justify that burden of proof is initially on the one making the positive claim and that therefore Pro autoloses if he can't prove Con's incompetence at rap but this isn't how burden of proof works and Pro points this out during the following Rounds.
Con's argument that rap battles reduce the quality of debates on DART is also irrelevant because if you analyse this entire debate's title and description, it doesn't specify that it would need to be Rated on here, nor that the rap battle itself would be held on DART. What it does do is state that the users on DART are the two engaging in it.
While this seems like me inferring things that Pro didn't point out, it is Con's fault for continually trying to make this debate about whether or not rap battles are okay to host and to say he'd never accept it out of a concern for DART's quality of debates. This never held any weight whatsoever by default, since the rap battle is never said to be hosted on DART.
It is further evident that Pro understands this flaw since in his Round 1 he looks to other websites to bring in evidence of his own rapping ability. This displays comprehension that this is not in a 'bubble of DART' but about the users on DART's overall rapping ability.
On top of this, it is confusing why Oromagi keeps pretending that there's 0% proof. When he has dodged nonstop rap battles on the website despite being one of the most active debaters, we have a large sample size to infer he is insecure about his ability to win them. Just because he says he isn't and says that it's his worry about the integrity of DART debates doesn't somehow nullify that Pro has completely explained how the LACK OF EVIDENCE does INDEED support his burden of proof given how active Oromagi has otherwise been. What we can see is that the other person in the rap battle claims himself to have experience in it, meaning that if anything is the default position for burden of proof, it's the one lacking a résumé who has a lot more to prove if he is to conquer the other candidate in the eyes of the judge.
Oromagi's points all revolve around two things:
1) Burden of proof is initially on Pro.
2) Oromagi denies avoiding rap battles out of fear.
Seldiora's points all revolve around two things:
1) Burden of proof is shifted onto Con due to only Pro's candidate having displayed experience in rapping in a competitive environment.
2) Con not only has burden of proof shifted onto them, he has stacked evidence against him given his repeated avoidance of rap battles in spite of his duration of site-use and rate of activity during that duration.
I do not comprehend Con's case, especially since in Round 1 he attacks Pro for claiming that Con is going to avoid a rap battle at any cost only to later in the very same Round admit that he would but scapegoats the reason as DART quality of debates which is irrelevant as the rap battle never was stated to be a rated DART debate.
>Reason for Mod Action: The RFD meets the requirements under the Voting Policy.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: [Removed]
>Reason for Decision: Argument: Pro's arguments did not withstand the rebuttals by Con. Pro's first round argument was entirely contained within a link outside the debate with no commentary by Pro. Bad form. Conversely, Con's arguments were mostly criticized, but lacked credence by rebuttal, and mostly failed in the attempt. Con's arguments, by contrast, could not be successfully rebutted by Pro, as Con demonstrated in his round 5.
Sources: Pro's sources were biases, inconclusive and self-contradicting. Example: Peta founder was demonstrated to criticize pet ownership, yet engage in proxie pet care, as Con demonstrated. Con's sources were credible and consistent in their messages.
S&G: Tie
Conduct: Pro's first and last rounds did not meet standard expectation. Con was professional and credible in all rounds.
>Reason for Mod Action: While the reasoning for the points awarded is fine, per the Voting Policy, there needs to be explicit mention of at least one argument/counterargument to award argument points. In addition, there needs to be explicit mention of what Pro did to warrant him losing conduct points. I actually agree with your analysis, for the record, and I am sorry for the inconvenience.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Rational Madman // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 4 points Pro
>Reason for Decision:
What about Con's BoP to prove he's as pro-life as he thinks he is?
Where was hit burden of proof met? Asinine trolling amd cowardice plague this debate. Pro consistently requests Con to prove that he is actually Pro-life and has actively opposed euthanasia and abortion through actions. All Con does is lost a syllogism to prove he thinks he is pro-life.
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote failed to check all the necessary boxes pursuant to the Voting Guidelines. Specifically, There are three criteria that need to be met for Conduct points to be awarded:
Provide specific references to instances of poor conduct which occurred in the debate
Demonstrate how this poor conduct was either excessive, unfair, or in violation of mutually agreed upon rules of conduct pertaining to the text of the debate
Compare each debater's conduct from the debate
None of these criteria are met.
Argument points also fail to meet specific criteria. I need to know why Con's arguments/counterarguments were insufficient per the Voting Policy clauses listed below:
Survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate
Weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself)
Explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points.
My apologies for the inconvenience.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ragnar // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 3 to Con
>Reason for Decision: Pro may as well have argued that con would use English. The only way he could be considered to have won, is if someone did not read con's case and bought that it was con who pulled Aristotle into the debate... Which while I do understand to be a tactic to try to make con attack his credibility, he does a much better job at that himself. I do not notice con making any emotional appeals. Con of course does use logic, but con defends this as a mode of argument rather than a specific argument utilizing it.
I write this as someone who regularly predicts arguments within debates, to pre-refute them. This is a fun idea for a debate, but con showed a clear path through it (and I don't notice pro arguing that con would use off topic arguments).
>Reason for Mod Action: This vote doesn't really include weighing as defined in the Voting Policy. I apologize for the inconvenience, but i just need one sentence explaining why the ethos pathos and logos arguments win it for Con. I get that it does, it's just not explained in the RFD.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw// Mod action: [Not Removed]
>Points Awarded: 6 points Con
>Reason for Decision: Argument: The flaw in Pro's argument comes out of the r1 first referenced source, the first sentence of which states: "Within the Trivium the goal of argumentative writing is to persuade your audience that your ideas are valid, or more valid than someone else’s." The trivium being, in this case, "Credibility, Emotion, Logic." The key phrase that Pro misses is that, as Con argued, the trivium are not, in themselves, arguments, but as the title of the article suggests, are modes of appeal: used to convince an audience "...that your ideas are valid..." The appeals are the tone of argumentative writing, but not the content. Pro's debate proposal that "I can predict my opponents future arguments in this debate" clearly announces his ability ["I can"] to predict not the mode of argument, but the argument content. But Pro does not predict the argument content of Con's in r2 or in r3. Points to Con.
Sources: Pro offered two sources, both in r1; the first, as noted above in "arguments" was misread as a supporting source. The second source was also misread. It dealt with how emotion motivates, but it is the action one is motivated to do that is the key to the story, and not what the young hero felt about it. The article is clear in this distinction, and Pro overlooked it. Whereas, Con is true to his sources. They are relevant to his arguments related to the Cambrian Explosion [r2] and wetness [r3]. Points to Con
S&G: Tie
Conduct: Pro's insistence on having won the debate in r2, a preliminary round, plus wasting effort to rebut and defend through r3 and r4 shows arrogance and overt-confidence. Point to Con
>Reason for Mod Action:
While brief, the voter meets the requirements under the Voting Policy.
************************************************************************
Gotcha
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: K_Michael // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 3 Con, 2 Pro
>Reason for Decision:
The argument "what manipulation of the genome may have occurred after 50,000 years ago is not in the scope of this debate" is blatantly false, as Con points out. The "entire human genome," includes all examples of the species, even those after 50,000 years ago, by definition. Since Pro concedes the existence of interspecies breeding, he by extension conceded the point.
Arguments to Pro.
Con only used a single Wikipedia article as a cited source. Pro not only uses more official sources, especially https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK22110/, which is a government organization, but also has more sources.
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter fails to sufficiently explain a) how the sources strengthened or weakened the arguments presented and b) how the sources used impacted the debate. Both of these are required under the Voting Policy. I'm sorry for any inconvenience.
************************************************************************
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: fauxlaw // Mod action: [Not Removed]
>Points Awarded: 5 points Con
>Reason for Decision: We'll try this once again, and I caution any detractors to review voting policy, as I will cite why I voted as I did from the policy. I appreciate Blamonkey for accepting my appeal against removal of my original vote.
Argument: Points to Con. The significant bone of contention re: should/can/will, with "should" defined by pro in round 1, then the attempt by Pro to expand by can/should in round 2, was successfully rebutted by Con in all rounds, first by limiting should by demonstration that can or will were even possible. When an action cannot happen, its "should" capability is strangled, and can/will become mere talking points without effectivity, as Con argued through the balance of rounds. Further, pro's argument in round 1 that IHR's regulations require "communicate... timely... information" to WHO has no enforcement teeth because "timely" is not a measurable, as Con argued in round 1 rebuttal. I contend my original vote not only did not violate policy, but was a reasoned development based on the logic of "should" as defined by Pro, as opposed to "can" or "will." "Should" is limited by "can" simply because "can" defines the parameters, not "should." I should be able to exact an eye for an eye against my neighbor for killing my dog which left a package in my neighbor's front yard, but the law dictates both the nature and the timing of my ability to exact revenge. It is legally not up to me. Just so, as Con argued, international law lacks the means to allow "should" to occur. It is a skillful rebuttal by Con both by argument and sourcing. Pro never overcame the argument that the law prevails, even by its lack. Because there is no international law, as Con argued, "can" is removed from the table, rendering "should" disabled. From the3 voting policy: "Weighing entails analyzing how the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments outweighed (that is, out-impacted) and/or precluded another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole."
Sources: Points to Con. Relative to my original vote on sourcing, pro's round 1 quote from “China's top political commission in charge of law and order" that “anyone who deliberately delays and hides the reporting of [virus] cases out of his or her own self-interest will be nailed on the pillar of shame for eternity" sounds convincing as if China is running upon its sword, but a little research into Pro's source for the quote finds that, 1. The source is South China Morning Post, a Hong Kong journal with which I am familiar, having logged much time in Hong Kong, 2. That the source is an opinion piece quoting a statement made by China's Central Political and Legal Affairs Commission [the commission to which Pro refers], 3 That the quote is actually out of Chang An Jian, China's official political propaganda vehicle, and 4. That the referenced "pillar of shame" is a protest sculpture on Hong Kong University's grounds, raised against Chinese aggression, and used cleverly by Chang An Jian by reverse psychology, thus weakening pro's source. That's credible sourcing??? Nope.
From the voting policy: "Explain, on balance, how each debater's sources impact the debate. Directly evaluate at least one source in particular cited in the debate and explain how it either bolstered or weakened the argument it was used to support. Must explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's." This is what I have demonstrated in my vote explanation on sourcing.
S&G: Both participant's s&g were good.
Conduct: Both participants conducted themselves profesisonally.
>Reason for Mod Action: The vote is justified per the Voting Policy guidelines.
************************************************************************