Also, I am 100% pro spanking, mostly because keeping black boys in class as opposed to suspending them is the best way to prevent future criminality and maximize lifetime social and economic attainment.
Corporal punishment has nothing to do with restorative justice, reasonable or otherwise. And your incorrect interpretation of what the word "reasonable" means should not be interpreted as actually limiting what CON can argue.
Yes, that's right. And arguing that no corporal punishment should be used in public schools for the reason that any corporal punishment leads to unreasonable further punishment would be totally fine.
Contrary to the incorrect interpretation of one member, there is no reasonable interpretation of the resolution where CON is limited to arguing "against a policy where they must accept there could be no potential problems at all."
You need only argue that schools should not be allowed to engage in corporal punishment. The rules are to prevent abusive, absurd, disingenuous or otherwise improper interpretations of what constitutes "corporal punishment."
Generally I tend to agree that awarding source points is bad form, unless there is a stark difference. I also agree it should be limited to extreme cases. For example, if one person cited law reviews and academic publications in recognized journals, but the other cited Q-anon twitter conspiracy theories then I could see awarding points. But that was not the case here. Not at all. Another example might be if one side cited no sources whatsoever, yet the other cited multiple credible sources. Also not the case here.
Voters can vote as they will, but the source points here do not pass the sniff test for me.
I think you're just unhappy that you lost, and you are biased in support of your belief that you won (as anyone would be .... like obviously you weren't playing to lose lol). But we'll see if others agree or disagree. I'm not changing my vote because the guy I gave the L to disagrees with that decision.
Also, use of "they" to refer to a singular person is grammatical anathema. To the extent anyone did that, they should reflect on their life choices. The word "they" cannot be non-ambiguously used to refer to singular persons. If you want to avoid using gendered language (which, frankly, is stupid) you need only refer to PRO or CON.
RM, I said your opponent should be admitted to a psych ward. I did not say that YOU should be admitted to a psych ward. You misread my PM, and then overreacted for reasons wholly unknown to me.
@Theweakeredge - Why are you blocking me? Also, why do you think this was meant for me?
Try to be a good sport about this. That kind of commentary is misplaced.
You can concede if you like, but I don't think that agreeing to a tie is worthwhile at this juncture. We're four rounds in.
Nothing wrong with conceding, though. In many respects, it might be best here; and we can debate this again at some other time.
Well, thank you. I appreciate that.
Wish I'd seen that before posting the last round.
Where are your sources?
Did you use all of your characters?
Also, I am 100% pro spanking, mostly because keeping black boys in class as opposed to suspending them is the best way to prevent future criminality and maximize lifetime social and economic attainment.
What does TBHT mean?
What it's sounding like to me is that no one here wants to actually argue the merits of whether schools should be allowed to use corporal punishment.
Then don't accept ... lol.
Corporal punishment has nothing to do with restorative justice, reasonable or otherwise. And your incorrect interpretation of what the word "reasonable" means should not be interpreted as actually limiting what CON can argue.
That's interesting. I would have thought that the majority of people here would be vehemently against any corporal punishment.
Yes, that's right. And arguing that no corporal punishment should be used in public schools for the reason that any corporal punishment leads to unreasonable further punishment would be totally fine.
Contrary to the incorrect interpretation of one member, there is no reasonable interpretation of the resolution where CON is limited to arguing "against a policy where they must accept there could be no potential problems at all."
Then don't accept.
You need only argue that schools should not be allowed to engage in corporal punishment. The rules are to prevent abusive, absurd, disingenuous or otherwise improper interpretations of what constitutes "corporal punishment."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gD1woa_Cbw&ab_channel=RussellPeters
"Your description disallows Con to argue that corporal punishment is very often unreasonable and asinine."
This is wrong.
You're missing a word:
"Reasonable CORPORAL punishment."
Not just reasonable "punishment," as such.
What kind of punishment, you ask?
CORPORAL punishment, as I defined it.
This was plainly stated above, and in the resolution itself.
If you missed it, then this topic is probably over your head.
"so what's the difference between Military boot camp "hazing" and "reasonable corporal punishment"?"
Reasonable corporal punishment is relevant to this debate.
Hazing is not relevant to this debate.
Generally I tend to agree that awarding source points is bad form, unless there is a stark difference. I also agree it should be limited to extreme cases. For example, if one person cited law reviews and academic publications in recognized journals, but the other cited Q-anon twitter conspiracy theories then I could see awarding points. But that was not the case here. Not at all. Another example might be if one side cited no sources whatsoever, yet the other cited multiple credible sources. Also not the case here.
Voters can vote as they will, but the source points here do not pass the sniff test for me.
I do not agree with awarding source points in this debate.
I think you're just unhappy that you lost, and you are biased in support of your belief that you won (as anyone would be .... like obviously you weren't playing to lose lol). But we'll see if others agree or disagree. I'm not changing my vote because the guy I gave the L to disagrees with that decision.
Also, use of "they" to refer to a singular person is grammatical anathema. To the extent anyone did that, they should reflect on their life choices. The word "they" cannot be non-ambiguously used to refer to singular persons. If you want to avoid using gendered language (which, frankly, is stupid) you need only refer to PRO or CON.
Your comment is makes no sense, just like your idea to "remove bias" by replacing the word "trump." This is absurd.
Maybe you just didn't read his case carefully enough. Or your own sources. Which you should have.
yep
Bias? You think you're going to eliminate "bias" by replacing Trump's name through the debate? lol
To quote Biden, come on.
This is a simple debate that turns on straightforward issues.
I'm not going to bother to write out a full RFD because I don't have the time or the inclination, but Whiteflame won and the other guy lost.
RM, I said your opponent should be admitted to a psych ward. I did not say that YOU should be admitted to a psych ward. You misread my PM, and then overreacted for reasons wholly unknown to me.
Smh...
Debates structured such that the acceptor must post the first round of argumentation, however popular, aren't really good form.