coal

FF by Danielle, for reasons that defy rational explanation. CON clearly wins.

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6169/post-links/267088

My RFD is linked above.

However, to summarize: PRO argues essentially that: (1) DUI laws don't serve any interest of our criminal justice system, because (a) they lack a legitimate retributive purpose, (b) do not deter drunk driving, (c) are over- and under-inclusive and (d) aren't necessary; while contending that (2) regulation mitigates harms better, and proposing that "an additional licensing test for drunk driving" be implemented that would "mitigate a number of problems" such as actually deterring "bad drivers, which is the relevant group that we want to deter" as distinct from merely drunk drivers and would more efficiently allocate resources ("police could go back to focusing on reckless drivers rather than drunk ones").

CON, on the other hand, contends that: (1) PRO simply "assumes that criminal law serves but one purpose: retribution, or punitive justice. Criminal law actually serves three public, or social purposes: punitive, curative and preventive." (Note: I removed the Oxford comma from that quote because it irritates me. I will not, however, deduct points from CON based on his Oxford comma usage, for reasons I can discuss if the debaters are interested.) Further, CON argues that: (2) society is protected by DUI laws because DUI laws deter drunk driving (this is the most charitable and least incoherent rendering of the point CON struggled to make).

PRO wins all points other than the drunk driving license, based on the fact that he demonstrated that DUI laws lack any legitimate retributive purpose (i.e., drunk drivers don't deserve punishment); DUI laws don't deter, and the distinctions make no difference in the outcome (or if they do, CON has not established a causal nexus between those distinctions and the societal benefits he alludes to); and DUI laws are unnecessary b/c they overlap with other driving laws, such as reckless driving. Drunk driving license point is won by neither side. There are too many problems in such a test's potential application, as noted by CON. But, this point was mostly superfluous/tangential to the resolution anyway. Even if CON won this issue, PRO still wins the debate overall.

As CON stated in his opening, "[t]his debate is about whether current US policy unfairly discriminates against minorities." In CON's words, mere demonstration of "past injustice" or "systemic racism," is not the same thing as establishing "current US policy towards minorities" that are discriminatory. Further as CON stated in R1, (i) civil rights laws protect minorities from discrimination and (ii) executive orders do the same. He listed numerous of them. PRO at no point meaningfully stated why any of the civil rights laws or executive orders identified by CON fail to prohibit discrimination against minorities, as became his burden once PRO cited them. Instead, PRO spent his characters trying to show that discrimination of the past, which CON did not dispute, translates into current discrimination. This he was unable to do because, as CON states in R4, even if it was true that the disparate outcomes identified by PRO were the case, they are better explained by "socially-mediated behavioral disparities" rather than the result of any "current US policy."

In my opinion, CON won this debate.

Further details on my opinion can be located at comments 10-13, which contain, respectively, Parts 1-3 of the same, that I will link below:

https://www.debateart.com/debates/3037/comment-links/37811
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3037/comment-links/37812
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3037/comment-links/37813

This debate was about whether wildlife trade is the most critical issue primarily involving nonhuman animals. PRO cites animal cruelty and threats to owners. PRO grounds his stance on animal cruelty philosophically, based on using them as means to ends which, in his opinion, constitutes injustice. PRO vaguely alludes to risks to human health. I am confused as to PRO's R1 point III. CON's burden is to show that wildlife trade is not the most critical issue relevant to non-human animals. It seems like he was trying to frame this as deforestation vs. animal trafficking, though that is not what the resolution says. CON correctly notes that that the resolution leaves many options available to CON, as CON's burden is met by establishing that *any* issue primarily involving non-human animals is more important than trafficking (as opposed to only deforestation). In any event, CON accedes to the framework to which PRO alludes in his R1 point III, and argues that deforestation is more important. He establishes a standard for measuring what counts as "critical" which appears objectively reasonable. CON's argument is that based on the scale and time pressure for deforestation, it is more critical than trafficking.

In R2, PRO argues that climate change is improving, but even if not the costs aren't all bad (and thus not a critical issue). PRO agrees there are many issues, not all are critical however. These arguments were difficult to follow; and their connection to the resolution was not obvious. PRO needs to directly link his arguments to the burden of proof as per the resolution he wrote. PRO's habit of characterizing arguments as "dropped" irritates me. CON is not supposed to directly rebut in the opening round, and even if he failed to put forward a single item of evidence in contravention of PRO's R1 affirmative case in CON's R1 opening, CON would not enter R2 "dropping" them. PRO must disabuse himself of this habit. CON correctly notes this in the first sentence of his R2 case. CON itemizes in R2 eleven items as to the magnitude of harm arising from deforestation. CON thereafter argues that the idea that global warming is being combatted does not make it the lesser threat.

In R3, PRO contends that CON's eleven R2 items were not linked to deforestation. I disagree. The link between those harms and deforestation was plainly stated in the sentence above his list of eleven items ("some statistics to put into perspective how urgent and destructive this threat is"). Here, concrete evidence was needed for PRO to establish that wildlife trade was more critical. PRO opted for a different approach, focusing instead on global warming and other things that he has not linked to his burden for this debate. RM forfeited R3, yet still met his burden in the prior rounds.

CON won the debate because he gave me more concrete reasons why the harms associated with deforestation outweighed any harm PRO identified as arising from wildlife trade.

CONDUCT: I am awarding PRO the conduct point because CON forfeited R3, and for no other reason. I considered not doing this, because of his incorrect statements that CON "dropped" arguments. This habit is one PRO must stop. Alas, I can't not take into consideration that CON forfeited the last round. Had he not done so, I would not have awarded PRO the conduct points and would have given CON the win outright.

Big picture comments: The following did not factor into my decision. I provide them for the limited purpose of feedback to each debater, and no other purpose. Further, I do not have an opinion on this issue. I have not even thought about what my opinion on the issue might be.

Those caveats being established:

1. I do not understand why PRO didn't talk about the threat that wildlife trade presents to human health, whether through COVID-19 and/or the spread of coronaviruses, the spread of African hemorrhagic fevers and/or the spread of AIDS. Each trace a lineage, albeit indirectly, to humans trafficking in animals for various purposes. This is the most clear, direct line of reasoning in support of PRO's burden of proof that he didn't specifically address in R1. If nothing else, this should have been brought up in R3, and it may well have provided the basis for PRO to argue that the magnitude of the threat posed by animal trafficking would outweigh the harm presented by deforestation.
2. In view of PRO's establishing this sort of framework of trafficking vs. deforestation, it would be fundamentally unfair to allow him to later argue that deforestation does not "primarily" involve non-human animals, which is the stronger argument against deforestation based n the resolution. He didn't really take that approach, however, so it wasn't an issue. But I'm surprised he didn't try. It would have been a stronger argument.

I happened to scroll across this with 13 hours left to vote. Would be a pity for you guys to put in the work to type it out, and then be left unrequited. This debate was about whether homeschooling should not be abolished. PRO argues to maintain home schooling (not abolishing) while CON wants it done away with (opposing not abolishing). A better way to word the resolution would avoid double negatives: "Homeschooling should be be maintained." PRO affirms; CON negates. Judges don't have to contend with double negatives.

PRO identifies various benefits to homeschooling (parental interaction, individualized lessons, familial strength and others) and cites a source for the proposition that increasing parental involvement improves student outcomes. And regular school has drawbacks, including the "one size fits all" approach where students at both ends of the achievement spectrum suffer. CON rebuts before making his own case. He states (without explaining his link) that parental involvement isn't always a good thing, suggesting potential harm both to children and familial structure in the form of divorce. He states that flexible curricula loses the benefits of standardization, and offers a potential harm such as students falling below the minimal threshold of what is needed for success.

CON's argument for banning homeschooling proposed that child abuse would be reduced if homeschooling was banned, based on the role teachers have as mandatory reporters. Without that, child abuse would go unidentified and unaddressed. PRO opposes, based on evidence he claims supports higher academic achievement among homeschooled students than alternatives (a claim that would later be negated by CON in R3, with respect to math outcomes). PRO reiterates harms associated with educational standardization and suggests that the means to evaluate minimal adequacy as CON suggests are inadequate for that purpose. And on child abuse, PRO suggests that there is no difference in the rate of child abuse in homeschooled vs. public schooled kids and even if so, the focus should be on bullying, suicide and trauma; which he argues is more important than child abuse. In R3 CON focuses on school shootings.

In R2, PRO introduces a new argument about rights/freedom, although this is insufficiently explored. Even still, CON is winning this point based on his observation of the realities of parental rights. This could have been a primary focus in R1 and would have been better suited to include there. And in R2, CON did not drop the life-skills argument nor did he drop standardization; as PRO incorrectly stated in R3. A "drop" means that the other side did not address; and CON addressed. It seems common these days that kids misunderstand what that phrase means.

This is a close debate and others may disagree. It is not a clear win for either side; both sides are close to each other here. Even still, the impacts slightly favor PRO. Standardization's benefits (including life skills, minimal adequacy, etc.) were harms only tenuously linked to homeschooling. It is unclear to me how CON's five reasons (as he lists in the middle of R2) are uniquely applicable to the CON world. It is also unclear to me how increasing school attendance is going to reduce child abuse, sexual or otherwise. I'd need links between mandatory reporters and "reducing child abuse," which wasn't in CON's case. I also would need links between "all forms of abuse," as CON alleges in R3, and "homeschooling." There's a physical connection implicit in the home, as a space; and the home, as a probable location for the abuse CON describes (but he didn't say that and I can't give him points for stuff he didn't say); but little more. Those links may have made the difference, if present, for CON.

PRO likewise was only arguing for why homeschooling should not be abolished. And for those limited who participate in it, such as those at the high and low ends of the achievement spectrum; homeschooling may well turn out a better fit. This would be a good reason to preserve. The only evidence CON introduced against familial integrity/structure was speculative and based on divorce rates. And the benefits for individualized attention seemed to be conceded as well, although there is more PRO could have done with them. CON probably did establish that homeschooling shouldn't be expected to work for everyone (and that's what his standardization point mainly regards) and there may well be subject areas (e.g., math, as he noted in R3-R4) where homeschooled students underperform. But that's not the same thing as saying it shouldn't be allowed at all, and the academic-underperformance evidence is limited. I do not factor PRO's R4 new argument on corruption into this decision because it is unfair to spring new argumentation on the opposing side, in the final round.

This debate was about whether Trump's impeachment was constitutional. Pro thinks it was. Pro lays out some criteria for impeachment (high crimes and misdemeanors). Pro missed that removal from office was the sole remedy available to the senate; you can't remove from office someone who doesn't hold the same; but tries to cite some historical reasons why this was without precedent. Con says otherwise. Con says there is historical precedent (e.g., from England, via trial of non-president Warren Hastings in 1785) and speculates that the founders actually intended "disqualification" to be an available remedy (which PRO readily notes the weakness of) --- squarely contradicted by the quote from Art. I, Sec. 3, Cl. 7 which clearly states that the legislature's sole remedy is removal ("Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office"). CON could have cited Cannon's Precedents (Sec. 512, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-HPREC-CANNONS-V6/pdf/GPO-HPREC-CANNONS-V6.pdf) in support of the proposition that there is some historical support that the senate may subsequently and separately vote on whether to disqualify a successfully impeached president from holding future office of any kind, but he missed that point. But the plain language of the rest of Cl. 7 makes clear that this is a separate procedure than impeachment ("and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States"); i.e., impeachment is different than vote on disqualification. The issue is whether Trump's trial was constitutional; the fact that the legislature may separately vote to disqualify him from holding future office is irrelevant and which PRO essentially states in rebuttal. PRO established that private citizens can't be impeached. CON speculated that this might have been considered by the founders, but doesn't have evidence to support constitutionality of such a process. Fact that a separate procedure might exist to disqualify from holding future office doesn't change this result. PRO wins.

Both sides left a lot of money on the table. Each could have made better arguments, cited better and more relevant sources (i.e., federalist papers on impeachment and specifically on relevant constitutional provisions, etc.). No one side cited better sources than the other. I noticed no appreciable difference in spelling or grammar; both did about the same.

Con's financial burdens (which Pro conceded) and false promises (which Pro implicitly conceded) outweighed therefore in persuasiveness, Pro's four preemptive rebuttals of overpopulation, boredom, and societal stagnation. The class issue (helping only the rich, as Pro framed it; and classism, as Con framed it) is one Con articulated better, though did not materially advance his burden of persuasion. As Con argues, "[a]t best, [Pro is] providing rich people the means to extend their lifespans and perpetuate their wealth and doing so at the cost of countless others who drain their savings in search of the fountain of youth. At worst, he’s ballooning the fake “aging cures” market to the point that any actual scientific successes will be drowned out, reducing every actual advance to a footnote in history and relegating us to a continuous cycle of fear motivating purchase after purchase of false promises." Moreover, "many diseases, including cancer and Alzheimer’s, will remain problems regardless of how well we “cure” aging" as Pro essentially agrees.

Neither of you approached this as I would have. Given that one of you must win and the other of you must not win, the scale tips to Con.

To be clear, this was not a debate. This was the mentally deranged rambling of a person who clearly needs to be medicated if not lobotomized, and a set of sentences posted after that which approximated coherency. The set of sentences which approximated coherency wins.

This was a debate about who was a better debater. There was no mutually agreed standard or benchmark for what constitutes "better". If there was some objective (or at least mutually agreed) standard for what constituted "better" this would have been a positive rather than normative resolution, with the implication that PRO would bear the sole burden of proof. Here, there is neither an objective nor mutually agreed standard/benchmark for what constituted "better". So, the least unfair way to judge the debate is to impute equal burdens of persuasion. This requires that PRO prove that bsh1 is a better debater overall than RM; but would require CON to prove that bsh1 was NOT a better debater than RM. This can be done in two ways; either by some affirmative showing that RM is better than bsh1, or that they are equally skilled overall.

PRO tried to argue that various debate stats from this site and from debate.org showed that bsh1 was a better debater, as bsh1 had won more and lost less debates than RM, among other reasons. Yet, there was no justification for why those numbers/data points meant that bsh1 was a better debater. To paraphrase RM's rebuttal, the fact that more wins are accumulated does not imply that bsh1 was the better debter because bsh1 could have only taken low-risk debates to artificially inflate his debate stats. The stats were the main point of distinction from PRO's perspective between bsh1 and RM. The implication having been undermined, PRO cannot win. Though, RM did not prove he was better than bsh1 either.

RM was better.