> I really don't feel obligated to define Con's rebuttal BoP. I intended to merely suggest one. Con may disagree however wished, and whatever BoP is determined by Con to present.
Judges are going to look at how you're defining the BOP so you should either remove what you've written for CON or replace it with what I wrote.
> Perhaps I ought to remove a suggested BoP for Con, and make it clear it is open season.
That would be fine, or you could replace it with what I wrote.
> I am very familiar with the embedded story of the grand inquisitor in Dostoyevsky's "Brothers."
Dostoevsky was a better author than Schiller was a playwright. lol
I agree with Ragnar. The resolution states "THBT Jesus will return when a sufficient number of people are ready to establish the Kingdom of Heaven." Clarification would be helpful here.
The burden of proof for the resolution as written is shared, and PRO must prove that "Jesus will return when a sufficient number of people are ready to establish the Kingdom of Heaven"; whereas CON must prove that "Jesus will NOT return when a sufficient number of people are ready to establish the Kingdom of Heaven."
While you correctly note that one way to negate is to argue that "Jesus will return," the alternative you propose ("his time has past and no longer needed") is NOT the resolution's negation. Rather, the way to negate the resolution would be to prove that "a sufficient number of people are ready to establish the Kingdom of Heaven" is NOT the determining factor for the second coming.
Rather, the alternative you propose is simply a reason WHY Jesus might not return (and is therefore subsumed into the preceding method of negating), presumably based on either Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor recited by Ivan to Alyosha in The Brothers Karamazov or Friedrich Schiller's play, "Don Carlos."
I would have given you the win here. This was better than the last debate of yours I read, though it's been a while.
Independently from this debate, I think there's pretty clear evidence out there that boys would benefit from video games being incorporated into K12 curriculum. The evidence is less clear for girls. Some might speculate that's because of biological differences in boys, who tend to be interested in things, and girls, who tend to be interested in people.
Looks like it could be an interesting topic, though I don't like the resolution's language. If it said something more like "America is a systemically racist country." I'd be more interested in negating.
I could go as low as 5k characters, but I'd prefer 1 week of debate time.
Many thanks to Ragnar and Pie. Given the amount of time spent on this debate, and the importance of the issues (both directly, as it relates to educational outcomes) and indirectly (as it relates to the integrity of social science research), I appreciate that you guys both read the debate and understood the arguments/evidence. Very good RFDs.
An excellent RFD that, in my opinion, captures each of the arguments, evaluates them appropriately and does so with only a sufficient number of words (and no more). Brevity is good. Quite good, indeed.
In R3-R4, PRO largely repeats the same arguments (with one ostensible exception I note below), with cumulative sources in support, while claiming (as he did in earlier rounds) that CON "dropped" arguments that CON did not "drop." I have admonished PRO about this misbehaviour in the past, and it seemingly has fallen on deaf ears. (Tangentially, I note my irritation with this species of misconduct, and would subject him to the same sort of corporal punishment I advocated for in American public schools, if he continues this recalcitrance and I was presented with the opportunity to do so. I nevertheless decline to award his opponent the conduct point, because the misbehaviour on PRO's part was, while egregious enough to merit discipline, not so egregious to tip the voting scale --- despite his lexicographical obnoxiousness, e.g., "completely and utterly dropped." A paddling is certainly well merited.) The one exception to PRO's cumulative arguments/sources was his newly introduced bit on criminal racial profiling, which though distinguished under a separate heading in R3, is really just the same thing he said in his immigration points.
In R3-R4, CON's rebuttal is refreshingly brief and to the point. A conspicuous difference from an otherwise long, tedious and often circuitous series of arguments from PRO. To wit, CON observes that, either generally or specifically with respect to housing, immigration, voting and racial profiling, "[p]ro still hasn't identified a current US policy that unfairly discriminates, or causes unfair discrimination, or even perpetuates it, and therefore Pro still hasn't come anywhere close to meeting his burden."
In R2, PRO rebuts, contending that (i) with respect to housing, "policies allow for racism to continue to exist in the[ir] current implementation and action," and according to the Brookings source cited by CON, some form of de facto redlining still exists, which is itself discrimination; (ii) with respect to immigration, "direct criminalization of immigrants, and therefore racist policy, fulfill the premise of being a discriminatory political policy," and PRO claims his sources support his points; and (iii) with respect to voting, minorities experience disparate outcomes, which means that "[t]he progress that Con claims to have made are near to none in actual showing." PRO endeavors to state a definition for systemic racism, and substantiate his claim that it is the case in the USA. CON, on the other hand, states in R2 that "Current laws, regulations, & executive orders are the primary source of evidence for determining what US policy is, and taken together, this evidence shows that current US policies strongly oppose unfair treatment of minorities." According to CON, merely allowing racism to exist is not identification of " any current policies that unfairly discriminate against minorities." As applied in the contexts cited by PRO, (i) there is no evidence, based on the examples alluded to by PRO, that the state of affairs in housing is the result of discrimination, and, based on CON's subjective experience, alternative explanations apply, such as people's preferences in where they live; (ii) with respect to immigration, "Pro doesn't actually identify any enforcement policies that are discriminatory"'; and (iii) with respect to voting, the policies identified by PRO result in "no unfair discrimination of minorities" in the present, based on the evidence to which PRO cites. Systemic racism is once again addressed.
PRO argues the US does while CON argues that the US does not. Generally, PRO's argument focused on past discrimination which, he contends, "continue to legally or informally uphold segregated realities for . . . minorities." In support, PRO cites (i) housing, (ii) immigration and (iii) voting. In rebuttal of PRO's R1 arguments, CON notes (i) housing discrimination in the form of redlining (as identified by PRO) is not the current policy of the United States, by law or happenstance; (ii) the state of affairs in the world does not evidence discriminations against minorities based on (a) PRO's own sources and (b) the current leadership of certain companies; and (iii) voting discrimination of the type identified by PRO is prohibited by, at least, the executive order to which CON cites and the "poll tax" identified by PRO is no such thing. CON notes that PRO's references to systemic racism lack clarity, though as that term is commonly understood he provides no evidence in support.
My vote notwithstanding, I note, however, that PRO does seem to be getting a little bit better at debating as time goes on. And he should heed the feedback he has received from others, including Whiteflame and myself, in future debates. In my opinion, PRO did better here than he did in his debate against me on a similar subject. So there is improvement, and improvement is good.
Evolution is one of those subjects I don't debate. Not because I couldn't, but because I don't care to spend time debating a subject that really comes down to the religious right vs. everyone else.
The resolution says "has discriminatory policies," not "had discriminatory policies." Few would argue that practices like Jim Crow wasn't discriminatory. Yet, none could even begin to coherently argue that such practices continue today.
" I wanted to clarify if you thought he was really bad or I am really good. It's a bit egotistical of me to just assume it's the latter which is why I asked."
I don't understand why you think those are the sole motivations I had?
I don't understand why you think I was condescending to you, because that was not my intention.
As I recall, you had some opinions about lockdowns and whether they were effective for a couple of public health factors. I disagreed with them and send you some stuff on that subject.
You thought what I sent you supported what you said.
I asked whether you were interested in the substance of the issue, or just trying to establish that you were right.
That offended you, and here we are.
I would prefer that there not be any lingering animosity. I don't have any towards you, despite your opinions on lockdowns if you were curious.
I also don't think I was condescending, either. Though perhaps you may have considered my unwillingness to engage in rhetorical jousting over lockdowns may have given that impression. That wasn't the intent.
Well I had no idea my debate had such a significant impact on you, necessitating any "need for some comic relief." But that's ok. This should be an interesting debate to watch.
" decided to go out of your way to try to assist my opponent by citing arguments they can make and encouraged them to make. Why don't you explain to everyone why you would do that?"
I would also add that CON would be well advised to consider what it means to be a "good" president. I assume Danielle is going to argue that Trump's limited successes (ignoring the universe of the issues she lists) indicate that he is a "good" president.
That being said, the advisable strategy (if CON were so inclined) to actually sweep the leg out from underneath this would be to argue, at least:
1. No way to measure.
a. Presidencies are too complex.
b. "Good" is subjective.
c. Biases can't be discounted.
2. To the extent you can measure what makes a president "good":
a. That would be unreliable, because you'd fail to account for everything.
b. No objective way to weigh successes against failures.
c. It's too early, given the impacts of Trump's presidency are still unfolding.
Stahhhhppp iiittttt. For real though. Whoever told you this is wrong.
> I really don't feel obligated to define Con's rebuttal BoP. I intended to merely suggest one. Con may disagree however wished, and whatever BoP is determined by Con to present.
Judges are going to look at how you're defining the BOP so you should either remove what you've written for CON or replace it with what I wrote.
> Perhaps I ought to remove a suggested BoP for Con, and make it clear it is open season.
That would be fine, or you could replace it with what I wrote.
> I am very familiar with the embedded story of the grand inquisitor in Dostoyevsky's "Brothers."
Dostoevsky was a better author than Schiller was a playwright. lol
I agree with Ragnar. The resolution states "THBT Jesus will return when a sufficient number of people are ready to establish the Kingdom of Heaven." Clarification would be helpful here.
The burden of proof for the resolution as written is shared, and PRO must prove that "Jesus will return when a sufficient number of people are ready to establish the Kingdom of Heaven"; whereas CON must prove that "Jesus will NOT return when a sufficient number of people are ready to establish the Kingdom of Heaven."
While you correctly note that one way to negate is to argue that "Jesus will return," the alternative you propose ("his time has past and no longer needed") is NOT the resolution's negation. Rather, the way to negate the resolution would be to prove that "a sufficient number of people are ready to establish the Kingdom of Heaven" is NOT the determining factor for the second coming.
Rather, the alternative you propose is simply a reason WHY Jesus might not return (and is therefore subsumed into the preceding method of negating), presumably based on either Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor recited by Ivan to Alyosha in The Brothers Karamazov or Friedrich Schiller's play, "Don Carlos."
Very good; any time in the next 26 days or so will be fine (before voting ends)
Are you going to vote here?
@Intelligence_06, It isn't nice to be mean to people who vote on your debates.
@gugigor, thank you for voting
Well, I've got some bad news for you . . . .
我不会说中文。 太复杂了 但我没有谈论一个球，我说的是一个星球。 虽然很好的辩论。
I would have given you the win here. This was better than the last debate of yours I read, though it's been a while.
Independently from this debate, I think there's pretty clear evidence out there that boys would benefit from video games being incorporated into K12 curriculum. The evidence is less clear for girls. Some might speculate that's because of biological differences in boys, who tend to be interested in things, and girls, who tend to be interested in people.
Looks like it could be an interesting topic, though I don't like the resolution's language. If it said something more like "America is a systemically racist country." I'd be more interested in negating.
I could go as low as 5k characters, but I'd prefer 1 week of debate time.
Remind me to vote on this, and I will.
I am inclined to agree that spacetime and username are the same person.
I would add that they both should be relegated to the naughty corner.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6169/post-links/267088
My RFD
Feel free to DM me to discuss this separately if you like.
I am, or I was. I'm irrelevant now.
Many thanks to Ragnar and Pie. Given the amount of time spent on this debate, and the importance of the issues (both directly, as it relates to educational outcomes) and indirectly (as it relates to the integrity of social science research), I appreciate that you guys both read the debate and understood the arguments/evidence. Very good RFDs.
Yes, well said.
Someone seriously reported my vote?
An excellent RFD that, in my opinion, captures each of the arguments, evaluates them appropriately and does so with only a sufficient number of words (and no more). Brevity is good. Quite good, indeed.
3 of 3.
In R3-R4, PRO largely repeats the same arguments (with one ostensible exception I note below), with cumulative sources in support, while claiming (as he did in earlier rounds) that CON "dropped" arguments that CON did not "drop." I have admonished PRO about this misbehaviour in the past, and it seemingly has fallen on deaf ears. (Tangentially, I note my irritation with this species of misconduct, and would subject him to the same sort of corporal punishment I advocated for in American public schools, if he continues this recalcitrance and I was presented with the opportunity to do so. I nevertheless decline to award his opponent the conduct point, because the misbehaviour on PRO's part was, while egregious enough to merit discipline, not so egregious to tip the voting scale --- despite his lexicographical obnoxiousness, e.g., "completely and utterly dropped." A paddling is certainly well merited.) The one exception to PRO's cumulative arguments/sources was his newly introduced bit on criminal racial profiling, which though distinguished under a separate heading in R3, is really just the same thing he said in his immigration points.
In R3-R4, CON's rebuttal is refreshingly brief and to the point. A conspicuous difference from an otherwise long, tedious and often circuitous series of arguments from PRO. To wit, CON observes that, either generally or specifically with respect to housing, immigration, voting and racial profiling, "[p]ro still hasn't identified a current US policy that unfairly discriminates, or causes unfair discrimination, or even perpetuates it, and therefore Pro still hasn't come anywhere close to meeting his burden."
And I agree.
2 of 3.
In R2, PRO rebuts, contending that (i) with respect to housing, "policies allow for racism to continue to exist in the[ir] current implementation and action," and according to the Brookings source cited by CON, some form of de facto redlining still exists, which is itself discrimination; (ii) with respect to immigration, "direct criminalization of immigrants, and therefore racist policy, fulfill the premise of being a discriminatory political policy," and PRO claims his sources support his points; and (iii) with respect to voting, minorities experience disparate outcomes, which means that "[t]he progress that Con claims to have made are near to none in actual showing." PRO endeavors to state a definition for systemic racism, and substantiate his claim that it is the case in the USA. CON, on the other hand, states in R2 that "Current laws, regulations, & executive orders are the primary source of evidence for determining what US policy is, and taken together, this evidence shows that current US policies strongly oppose unfair treatment of minorities." According to CON, merely allowing racism to exist is not identification of " any current policies that unfairly discriminate against minorities." As applied in the contexts cited by PRO, (i) there is no evidence, based on the examples alluded to by PRO, that the state of affairs in housing is the result of discrimination, and, based on CON's subjective experience, alternative explanations apply, such as people's preferences in where they live; (ii) with respect to immigration, "Pro doesn't actually identify any enforcement policies that are discriminatory"'; and (iii) with respect to voting, the policies identified by PRO result in "no unfair discrimination of minorities" in the present, based on the evidence to which PRO cites. Systemic racism is once again addressed.
1 of 3.
PRO argues the US does while CON argues that the US does not. Generally, PRO's argument focused on past discrimination which, he contends, "continue to legally or informally uphold segregated realities for . . . minorities." In support, PRO cites (i) housing, (ii) immigration and (iii) voting. In rebuttal of PRO's R1 arguments, CON notes (i) housing discrimination in the form of redlining (as identified by PRO) is not the current policy of the United States, by law or happenstance; (ii) the state of affairs in the world does not evidence discriminations against minorities based on (a) PRO's own sources and (b) the current leadership of certain companies; and (iii) voting discrimination of the type identified by PRO is prohibited by, at least, the executive order to which CON cites and the "poll tax" identified by PRO is no such thing. CON notes that PRO's references to systemic racism lack clarity, though as that term is commonly understood he provides no evidence in support.
My vote notwithstanding, I note, however, that PRO does seem to be getting a little bit better at debating as time goes on. And he should heed the feedback he has received from others, including Whiteflame and myself, in future debates. In my opinion, PRO did better here than he did in his debate against me on a similar subject. So there is improvement, and improvement is good.
An excellent topic.
Evolution is one of those subjects I don't debate. Not because I couldn't, but because I don't care to spend time debating a subject that really comes down to the religious right vs. everyone else.
Thanks for the vote and RFD!
The resolution says "has discriminatory policies," not "had discriminatory policies." Few would argue that practices like Jim Crow wasn't discriminatory. Yet, none could even begin to coherently argue that such practices continue today.
I'm sure I will in due course. Are you following this debate?
I mean technically yes, round 2 should be limited to rebutting the affirmative cases of round 1.
But if you want to address rebuttals, I'm not going to complain. So your call. I don't care one way or the other.
Relatedly, I haven't written this much about Foucault since I was in grad school . . . . lol
I'll vote on this when you're done, if you remind me.
So RM are you going to continue to block me, or are you going to sort yourself out?
Well, any "kink" related aspects of this are different than what is being debated here.
Though I do think you're right that RM seems to have an interest.
Perhaps. Well, this is what's so strange:
"Your interpretation seems kinkier than mine."
I just want to understand why you accepted, when this was meant for gugigor.
I am lost. What do you mean.
what does that mean?
why did you accept this?
I have corrected your debate proposal.
If you two try this again, with more substantive arguments, I'll vote on it.
"We both know there is nothing about you that could ever make me nervous."
You are very defensive. Why is that?
" I wanted to clarify if you thought he was really bad or I am really good. It's a bit egotistical of me to just assume it's the latter which is why I asked."
I don't understand why you think those are the sole motivations I had?
"Should we defund the police"
Wait, remind me of what happened there? I forgot.
I don't understand why you think I was condescending to you, because that was not my intention.
As I recall, you had some opinions about lockdowns and whether they were effective for a couple of public health factors. I disagreed with them and send you some stuff on that subject.
You thought what I sent you supported what you said.
I asked whether you were interested in the substance of the issue, or just trying to establish that you were right.
That offended you, and here we are.
I would prefer that there not be any lingering animosity. I don't have any towards you, despite your opinions on lockdowns if you were curious.
I also don't think I was condescending, either. Though perhaps you may have considered my unwillingness to engage in rhetorical jousting over lockdowns may have given that impression. That wasn't the intent.
Just seems like you've got some unresolved issues. Namely because you continue to block me. Seem very aggressive in comments here.
@Theweakeredge
I am confused as to why you seem to have so much animosity towards me.
" need for some comic relief"
Well I had no idea my debate had such a significant impact on you, necessitating any "need for some comic relief." But that's ok. This should be an interesting debate to watch.
" decided to go out of your way to try to assist my opponent by citing arguments they can make and encouraged them to make. Why don't you explain to everyone why you would do that?"
Did I make you nervous?
Spite? That's not very nice. You'll hurt my feelings doing that . . . .
I would also add that CON would be well advised to consider what it means to be a "good" president. I assume Danielle is going to argue that Trump's limited successes (ignoring the universe of the issues she lists) indicate that he is a "good" president.
That being said, the advisable strategy (if CON were so inclined) to actually sweep the leg out from underneath this would be to argue, at least:
1. No way to measure.
a. Presidencies are too complex.
b. "Good" is subjective.
c. Biases can't be discounted.
2. To the extent you can measure what makes a president "good":
a. That would be unreliable, because you'd fail to account for everything.
b. No objective way to weigh successes against failures.
c. It's too early, given the impacts of Trump's presidency are still unfolding.
I am delighted to see that I've been such a source of inspiration!
lol
This should be amusing to watch.
CON still is favored to win, despite all of these.
Absent from this list are: China, Trade Deficit, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and dozens of others.
Though the description is funny, it doesn't analogize to my corporal punishment debate.