bsh1

I don't buy that requiring Con to argue for god's omnibenevolence is abusive. Firstly, this is a trait commonly attributed to god, and so it is not absurd that Con would be asked to defend it. Secondly, and more importantly, Con was under no obligation to accept the debate as it stood, and the definition of god was clearly stated. Buyer's remorse is not a compelling argument. At this point, then, I can essentially conclude that Pro won the debate. Even if Con won every other argument, the problem of evil gives me a compelling reason to believe that god as defined (one which is ominbenevolent) does not exist.

That said, Con did not win every other argument. He pretty soundly loses his consciousness argument. Without a credible source to back up his claims inside the debate, his argument does in fact boil down to a god of the gaps fallacy (i.e. "Goddidit"). Con's handling of the KCA was also solid. Con's reply that it was okay to engage in special pleading with god because of god's unique properties strikes me as being special pleading itself. Instead of countering the allegations of fallacious logic, Con admits to them.

Con is winning a couple of points. On his case, his discussion of morality was mishandled by Pro. Why not simply suggest that altruism is necessary from a rational point of view? You cannot have a functioning, complex community if no one trusts anyone and if everyone is afraid of being robbed by some more aggressive adversary. I think the whole premise of Con's argument was fundamentally foolish, but he was able to dispatch with Pro's responses easily enough. Con is also winning his fine-tuning argument at the end of his case--yes there are risks to life here, as Pro notes, but overwhelmingly, just the fact that life like ours is possible here is improbable without some sort of deity. That message from Con comes across loud and clear.

I am not going to talk about the main body of Pro's case, because he failed to defend it when he forfeited. It is odd then, that despite Pro's failure to defend his case, that I am voting for him. Ultimately, I have to find abuse arguments reasonable to credit them, because they ask for the judge (me) to intervene in the round. I don't find Con's abuse arguments creditable, and so I give Pro the weight of his POE argument. Con manages to show me that a god who meets three of the four O's is probable, but not that a god who meets all four is. I grant argument points to Pro as a result. For the forfeit, I grant Con argument points.

Also, I want to add that I really dithered about this vote. Part of me feels that Pro is winning in absentia, and that doesn't sit well with me, and Con did well. But I couldn't reconcile a vote for Con with my issues on the POE. I would also encourage Con to sign-post better--his presentation style was confusing at points. And both of you--avoid block quotes! Hopefully this counts in your views as a solid vote, since I know you've had a lot of spam votes on this debate. Keep at it--it was a good debate!

This is clearly a troll debate. Either it is a truism (Pro's case) or it is absurd (Con's case). Prima facie, it strikes me as absurd; the actual content of the debate is stupid and silly and obviously facetious. Arguments to Con because Obi-Wan, taken as a phrase together, in English, is not a belt or soup bowl. This is an English-language site; unless it was clear from get-go that it was Japanese, it would be unfair of me to weigh the Japanese argument. Conduct to Con--Pro's whole shtick was entrapment, which is inherently unfair.

Pro did not meet his burden of proof. While Pro cited specific--though not credible--examples of intelligent Chimpanzees, this was not sufficient to prove a general claim like the one being made by the topic. Because only Con offered any arguments which could count towards fulfilling the BOP in the round, they naturally capture argument points. Pro didn't make any effort to rebuff Con's claims substantively, instead focusing on an argument about redefining the BOP. This means that I have to buy Con's substantive claim that Chimpanzees are not generally more intelligent that humans. There are two reasons to reject Pro's BOP chicanery: (1) it was unfair (see below), and (2) Con is quite correct that the plain meaning of the text is different from Pro's understanding of it (Pro doesn't push back on this except to repeat his original assertion). Arguments to Con.

Pro's use of secondary sources of questionable provenance and accuracy undermined his arguments. This was particularly evident when Con, using a primary source study, debunked an article Pro cited which inaccurately represented that study. Not only did this undermine the credibility of Pro's position, but it also allowed Con to effectively turn Pro's evidence against them. Con's use of sources was clearly superior to Pro's. Sources to Con.

Let's deal with the pink gorilla in the room: plagiarism. This is clearly unethical--a form of intellectual theft. Similarly, the disingenuous attempt to contort the commonsense meaning of the resolution as obviously unfair. Bare plurals refer to generalities, and thus, Pro's attempt to creatively reinterpret the topic was an attempt to entrap Con. Conduct to Con.

As I said, I am too sexy to "guzzle" anything. Also loving the other RFDs on this debate <3

So, will judge this debate based on the balance of round (i.e. who "won" the most rounds). In the first round, I liked Pro's entry. While I definitely don't prefer instrumental-only music, this wasn't bad as those kinds of tracks go. It did get a bit heavy-handed at the end. Before I even listened to Con's, I was thinking to myself, "this is going to be super religious...oh god." BUT PARTY!!! Some nice electro house...It's making me think about lots of hot guys wearing almost nothing at all, dancing and sweaty at some beach club in Mykonos, and I am LIVING for it! So, when I read the lyrics, there are some boner-killing references to god, but I still liked this song best for this round.

In round two, OMG...from the first sung notes I am all in with Pro's choice. Beautiful, gentle, ethereal...When the beat drops, I'm not sure I like what follows. It's a bit too repetitive, but the rest of it is great. That voice could serenade me any day. Con's entry...Panic! At the Disco is always hit or miss for me. This was okay until about 1:02. I just think there are too many competing layers here--take it to church lyrics with a kind of dreamlike music and a clashing thunder after the beat drops. It's trying to be soul, that delicate kind of butterfly EDM, and a banger all at once and it's just not working for me. This round goes to Pro.

In round three, it took me awhile to warm up to Pro's entry, but I did. I like it, but I don't think it's anything special. I am liking the music a lot, but the vocals just are doing it for me. I wanted a falsetto or a more assertive approach or something...It was nice, but not great. Con's entry started with a great base. I'm a boy with luv for Halsey! And the beat drop was great--none of the clashy clashy nonsense. But, for a remix, it didn't feel like it remixed much--I think there was more room for it to go crazy on the song. Kinda got blueballs there...Still, Con's entry was more my style. I love that thing they do when they take snippets of the singers voice to create sounds...No idea what it's called, but I like it.

In round four, Pro's song title here is aggressive. Not sure if we're talking assertive smooth, or leather gang sex party yet...But I end up getting neither. Soft vocals with an edgy beat drop...I like it. I could rock to this...and it's growing on me. And now I'm thinking about double entendres...edge...growing... Yeah, definitely like this. So, Con's entry is a classic...but it is soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo, so REPETITIVE! I mean, like if this came on, of course I'd do the gay robot to it, because you have to, ya know? But I don't think I would choose to play it myself. Though, I will give it kudos for more double entrendes, and the groovy sound, OMG...That's why it's a classic. Funky. But Pro's choice is still better this round. Con's entry, had it been in Round 2, might have won him that round, but not this one.

Finally, in round five, Pro literally chose a song that's in my own Spotify. YOU GO SPOCK! Mind-reading ftw! THIS SONG IS FIRE!! WORK! Literally...this song is the aural version of fire...Hot and intense, but totally sexy. Con chooses a song I used to own on iTunes back when I used it, so I guess mind-reading x2...? Unfortunately for Con, my tastes have changed since high school. There is something overwrought and almost hollow about this song. It's trying to be a banger, but its too overdramatic to really hit the mark. This round goes to Pro.

By my count, that's 3 for Pro, 2 for Con. Much closer race than last round, but still a Pro victory. Every judge has their own style, and I'm more in sync with what Pro's offering this debate.

So, I am going to vote based on my preferences for each round. In this first round, I strongly preferred Pro's to Con's in a relative sense, though, in an absolute sense, I was not super on board with either. There was something too ballady about it, which I don't like in my EDM. Said the Sky does some nice stuff, but this wasn't clicking for me. Also, I do strongly tend to prefer songs which are not solely instrumental.

In round two, I loved Pro's entry. It was literally just my style--it sounds at home in my spotify. Con's entry was better than last round, but still unimpressive. Also, is that a black Orthodox Jew? That's a new one.

In round three, for an instrumental, Pro's entry was okay, but it could occasionally come across as too hard-rocky. Con's entry had me until 0:40. The song had so much potential, but was just destroyed by the almost screamy noises that were interrupting the melody. Both songs had similar problems for me, but Pro's was less jarring overall.

In round four, I enjoyed Pro's entry. It didn't feel particularly special, but it was enjoyable, and I'll probably add it to my own playlist. Con, this is another situation where it's just too ballady for me. It's more overwrought than Abba, and just...no. The song itself is a gay anthem classic, but I am not even sure I would call this EDM.

In round five, I was just like "YASSSSS! WORK BITCH!" listening to Pro's entry. It's disco-inspired EDM, and that's perfection. I am here for it! Con, RIP Avicii. If this had been your R3 entry, you would have won that round. But, against Pro's R5 submission, it just sounds a bit dated. Levels has a lot of soul, but it's super repetitive musically.

I think Pro won all five rounds. Some rounds were close, some rounds weren't. But I think Pro's selections were far more to my taste, so that's how I will vote. Good debate, you guys!

RFD:

Basically, this debate was decided in round 3. Pro's failure to present a plan at the start of the debate enabled Con to generate impacts from that nebulousness (e.g. classism). I think Pro could have said that the only reasonable extrapolation from the nebulousness was that his case and impacts were vague (pushing back on the idea that impacts like classism could be foisted on him), but even such a concession would have been devastating. Without a clear idea of what exactly Pro is affirming, it is impossible to know precise impacts will result from the Pro case, undermining Pro's solvency. Pro's attempt to reverse course and offer that clarity fails. Introducing a plan (or plan-like details) late in the debate is, as Con observes, grossly unfair. Con predicated his first response on what Pro originally presented; it is unfair then for Pro to simply change his case to moot all of Con's reasonable replies. Pro's case is severely damaged.

But Con does more than simply leverage the lack of a clear plan from Pro. Con's reply to the "putting others at risk" argument is devastating, because it demonstrates that Con is essentially instituting an uneven standard. On the one hand, we must force vaccines. On the other, we don't force face masks when ill. This inconsistency in advocacy demonstrates that liberty concerns are still significant to Pro, however much he might try to argue that lives outweigh liberty. That he is unwilling to constrain liberty by requiring the wearing of facial masks, even though such a measure would save lives, confirms that liberty is often more important than the pure sort of consequentialist reasoning Pro deploys. Con is able to extend his liberty violation argument, and, in conjunction, these observations make a strong case for Con outweighing Pro overall. Pro always could've just said that face masks and sick leave should be mandatory also, but he didn't, and I can see why, but I am not sure that was the right strategic decision.

Con successfully mitigates the herd immunity argument by indicating that, in most cases, the threshold is met without a liberty-impinging mandate. Con also has an edge in the health risks argument train. Pro can claim only one US death, Con is claiming over a thousand. At this point then, Con is comfortably winning. Regardless of how the financial or protest debate strains played out, even if they both went to Pro, neither could outweigh the offense Con has already accumulated. That said, Con better fleshed out the financial debate, and the protest debate lacked clear, measurable impacts. Con wins.

For Improvement:

I wonder if there was room for Con to make a libertarian case for mandatory vaccinations--and maybe that, coupled with a plan, would have been a better strategy, since it would have anticipated the kind of argument whiteflame was likely to make and tried to turn that into an advantage for Pro. Such a case could have gone something like: "people may exercise liberty only to the extent that their actions significantly endanger the safety of others. This keeps government interference at a minimum. Since refusing vaccines significantly endangers the safety of others, vaccines should be mandated." Of course, even with such an argument, you'd need to win some empirical impacts, which just wasn't happening here. Pro, you need to flesh things out more; go into greater depth. It wasn't necessarily that Whiteflame's data was massively better than yours, it's that he told a clearer story with the data he had. Also, for whiteflame, you had a mix of liberty and util impacts--how would the judge have weighed between those had you not been winning both? A clearer weighing mechanism would have been nice, but ultimately proved unnecessary.

[Full Disclosure: I was asked to vote on this debate by Whiteflame.]

On Con's arguments, I do not see how the call to reject political correctness is somehow dispositive of this debate. There was never any clear reason given to me as to why exactly political correctness is bad. At most, I get a vague statement that the "path of political correctness is frankly not one any healthy society should tread upon." But of course, I am still left asking *why* should no healthy society tread upon this path. Once I had some idea as to where Con was going with his opening statement, I thought it held potential as a novel approach to the topic. Yet, the necessary scaffolding to successfully launch this argument was never constructed. I am not sure why I should care that gay marriage is somehow politically correct, and so this argument has no oomph in the debate. I discount it as unweighable for lack of specified harm.

On the counterplan, I am uncertain as to how this is actually solving for all Pro's case without being Pro's case, specifically since some (though not all) of Pro's benefits hinge on the symbolic nature of the word "marriage." Benefits of the kind that marriage provides may not be as beneficial without the gravitas and legitimacy granted by the term marriage itself. I see this most clearly playing out in terms of the debate around stigma, both in how that affects LGBTQ+ couples and in how it impacts their children. That being said, the counterplan is certainly doing some work for Con, and does cancel out some of Pro's key claims regarding, for example, household stability. I just do not think it's doing as much work a Con thinks it is doing.

I did not think that Pro responded ideally to the definitional debate in his second round. I was surprised Con didn't make more of a big deal out of this, as it could have gained him desperately needed offense amidst his defense-heavy approach ("defense" might not be the right word, perhaps "response"). I do get a much clearer argument from Pro on this discussion in the final round, however. Frankly, I am buying all of what Pro is selling in his C1A of that last round inasmuch as Con's counterplan doesn't address the value in the symbolism of the term marriage and Con's rebuttal to the "sleeping around" argument was non-responsive to the essential claim Pro was making.

I can vote Pro right here on the weight of the offense, because (a) Con has no offense and (b) Pro does have offense. Con has no offense because he failed to explain why political correctness mattered in the context of this debate (i.e. he failed to impact this argument) and because his counterplan gains him no Con-unique benefits, which is to say that all the benefits of his counterplan would also occur in the Pro world. Conversely, Pro does have offense (as I outlined above), which of course outweighs. By failing to provide a more fulsome, positive argument in favor of his position, Con really situated himself for failure in this kind of equal burdens debate.

I could also vote Pro on Con's counterplan alone, for if, as Pro claims, it constitutes marriage, then Con has conceded Pro's point. Con does not offer a clear distinction between his counterplan and Pro's plan, so this is a plausible line of attack from Pro. Con tries to tell me that the plans are somehow different, but his plan struck me from the outset as rather nebulous. Certainly the bare assertion that "this notion that 'my plan is his plan' has no basis in fact" is not enough to really count as an argument; even if it were, what are the differences? That's just not made clear to me.

Finally, I could also vote Pro because offense has greater impact (in terms of real world outcomes) than Con's argumentation. Even if I had bought political correctness, I just don't see how those more theoretical impacts stack up against reduced prejudice and stigmatization of LGBTQ+ people.

While I could go through and do a written analysis of each and every argument thread in the debate, I find that would be entirely unnecessary and a waste of my time. That there are no reasons I can identify to vote Con, but at least three such reasons to vote Pro, is sufficient for the purposes of this vote. The detail in this RFD is, in my view, sufficient to justify why Pro has won this debate hands-down.

I will be posting a feedback portion of this RFD in the comments section of the debate. Good debate on both sides; it was civil and well-argued.