Let's remember that troll debates are not eligible for moderation and so do not satisfy the qualification: "Complete at least two rated debates which are eligible for moderation, each containing no more than a single forfeiture, using the open voting system (as opposed to judicial selection)."
I am guessing that Sidewalker can vote because of the second qualification, " or make 100 non-spam forum posts."
I think the spirit of competitive debate is enhanced by new voters doing a couple of real debates that, win or lose, demonstrate the voters understanding of language, logic, persuasion, grammar, style, research, evidence. I think everybody's more comfortable being evaluated by DARTers who can demonstrate they understand the basics and are using the same basic criteria as debaters everywhere.
Watching SIr Lancelot help to on board voters with the least of effort, without demonstrating any actual debating skill or understanding read to me as a bad sign for the future freeness and fairness of debates on this site. What possible advantage can loading on more voters who haven't demonstrated their debate cred represent to the site? The advantage to the debater conducting the unproven voters is pretty obvious.
@Americandebater24
@TWS1405_2
@hey-yo
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: TWS1405_2 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Con (Arguments, Sources, Legibility, Conduct)
>Reason for Decision:
Con provided better, far more well-grounded convincing arguments.
Con provided significantly more reliable sources.
Con provided significantly better legibility.
Con provided observably significantly better conduct.
Pro is clearly pro-criminal, Con is pro employee and employer safety, not to mention any position where an employee would come into contact with the public, thereby keeping the public safe.
>Reason for Mod Action:
All 4 of TWS's votes are manifestly insufficient.="To cast a sufficient vote, for each category awarded, a voter must explicitly perform the following tasks:"
" (1) Provide specific references to each side’s utilization within the said category."
" (2) Weigh the impacts against each other, including if any precluded others."
" (3) Explain the decision within the greater context of the debate."
"https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#casting-votes"
Furthermore, this VOTER demonstrates clear bias by basing votes on perceived traits of the debater rather than arguments in the debate (i.e. "Pro is clearly pro-criminal, Con is pro-employee." Since many debaters agree to support arguments that do not reflect their personal beliefs, any and all VOTES based on perceived beliefs are inherently disqualified. Likewise, any VOTE that includes irrelevent description of one or more debaters traits is disqualified.
**************************************************
Well, it is the first time I've ever run into him. I gave you two analogies: calling out answers in a trivia contest or a spelling bee. Think about hey-yo- maybe he wants to make an argument but you've already made the argument in the comments sections and now he looks like he's taking coaching from you. It is tempting to read an argument and then come back with your own argument but within the comments of the debate it is adding pressure to both sides who are supposed to be ignoring comments but are receiving automatic updates. If you really plan to vote, you are also advertising your prejudices before the debate is done and undermining your responsibility to be an objective critic. I see lots of cases where somebody is sparked by arguments in a debate and got to the forums with thier own take which seems perfectly acceptable.
After the Nuggets won in Miami last night, the Nugget's coach put a tight lid on any kind of celebrating he said, "Don't watch an TV, don't read any news pay zero attention to anybody's opinion, you haven't done anything until you've won the championship and you haven't won the championship until you've won four games." It is little like that in any contest: the last thing a contender needs during the contest is commentary from the sidelines: it just makes them question their own choices and raises questions about whose arguments really won the day. Unlike the Nuggets, these debaters are getting updates from commentary that they can't turn off and can't really ignore in case it is important information. Good form is to withhold actual critique or argument while the contest is underway.
Americandebater is new and may not yet have figured out that the first rule of fight club is always ignore TWS. I'm just saying you could choose to be less of a POS for once and cut the new guy some slack.
TWS- Your conduct here is obviously shitty and unsportsmanlike. Just as it would suck if somebody was calling out answers at a trivia contest or calling out spellings at a spelling bee, it takes a pretty anti-social person to be blasting counterarguments in the comments sections while two debaters are contesting the issue. I don't consider this behavior a code of conduct violation necessarily but you are definitely fucking up some of your fellow debaters' fun for no good reason and objectively anti-debate. I would strongly encourage you to reconsider your behavior here and hold back, at least until after arguments are complete.
PRO presents Peter Singer's logic:
P1: Donating to effective social causes can prevent very bad things from happening.
P2: Individuals have excess wealth that can be used for donations.
P3: Excess wealth is of comparably minimal moral significance.
C1: Individuals can prevent very bad things from happening without sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance.
P4: If individuals can prevent very bad things from happening without sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance, they have a moral obligation to do so.
C2: After meeting their basic needs, individuals have a moral obligation to donate all remaining wealth to effective social causes.
PRO uses an analogy of a drowning child to demonstrate the consistency of the moral obligation to donate,
even if it inconveniences the observer.
The author argues that this obligation should be extended to donating to charitable causes.
The objection is summarized as the idea that an unreasonably demanding moral theory should not be accepted.
PRO counters by highlighting the perspective of those in need and the fulfillment of basic needs before donations.
PRO argues that even if the moral obligation is demanding, it should not be rejected based solely on intuitiveness.
Overall, PRO advocates for individuals to donate their excess wealth to effective social causes after meeting their basic needs, based on the principles of preventing harm, moral obligation, and consistency with established ethical values.
CON addresses the proposition that moral obligations, specifically the obligation to give up all wealth to the poor, are impractical and would have negative real-world consequences. CON argues against the proposition by outlining two main points: the impact on poverty and the issue of national sovereignty.
CON claims with good evidence presented that luxury industries primarily employ the lower and middle classes. These industries contribute significantly to the economy, and a reduction in luxury consumption would lead to unemployment and an increase in poverty. CON points out that even the poor contribute to luxury industries, and a rapid reduction in luxury purchases would have devastating effects on employment and the pool of people requiring aid, even extending internationally. Additionally, the author argues that as luxury industries decline, so will donations to international NGOs, further decreasing resources available to the poor.
CON references Hannah Arendt's concept of citizenship as "the right to have rights" and argues that sovereignty is undermined by the proposition, reducesing a state's accountability to its citizens and increasing dependency on external sourcess uncontrolled by democratic oversight. CON further argues that aid can hamper the development of domestic institutions and infrastructure when overdependency on external sources of funding may promote instiutional dependency, weakness, or neglect. CON gives examples of how aid has led to brain drain and a lack of citizen accountability in healthcare services which , in turn, undermines the expression of political sovereignty and places power in the hands of NGOs and int'l orgs.
Overall, CON asserts that the proposition's implementation of moral obligations would have unintended negative consequences in terms of increased poverty and reduced national sovereignty. The argument aims to demonstrate the impracticality and potential harm of abstract moral obligations when applied in the real world.
In, R2, PRO's counterargument wrecks his own case utterly. PRO argues that the resolution refers to individual obligations, not collective obligations, and each individual's moral obligation is independent of others. PRO therefore argues that humans should pursue individual morality even at the expense of the collective good. This VOTER considers the individual's highest obligation as to the next generation and is not interested in moral plans that undermine that collective good.
Then PRO strangely argues that the collective harm might not be so harmful if nobody paid attention to PRO's argument- if few or none acted on PRO's moral obligation. This VOTER considers this argument in favor of CON's plan.
Then PRO argues that the current moral obligation might be transient in the future which is unknowable and has no impact on this discussion.
This VOTER disagrees that CON's framework was missing or flawed. CON's framework of collective good is objectively superior to PRO's framework of individual good. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
CON effectively quotes SInger to undermine PRO's impracticality. CON illustrates the contradiction in PRO's argument nicely, "
Pro is stuck in a double bind. If they admit that the moral obligation is a mere “suggestion,” they cannot derive any impact from their moral obligation. If they admit that the concrete analysis of moral obligations is a necessary to assess the value of the obligation, they must cede to my impacts."
CON also slices up PRO's expansive conception of basic needs to lessen the hardship of charity on the rich while failing to recognize the concurrent expansion of basic needs for the poor, making a bottomless pit of need and a fuzzy line of demarcation for the poor.
This VOTER agrees that PRO presented a pretty hard fast moral line of obligation in R1 and then spent R2 trying to make his radicalism more palatable by fuzzying Singer's syllogism wherever possiible.
ARGUMENTS to CON.
SOURCES also go to CON. Yes PRO's sources were more sporadic and less scholarly but the most stand-out difference was the way PRO used sources to define terms and echo his argument while CON used to support speciific practical claims and predictions based on real world data. CON's sources gave his argument the credibility necessary when making claims about future impacts and illustrated the lack of such supporting data for PRO's claim.
Nicely argued by both sides. Particular kudos to CON for the clarity and command of his English.
I agree that Brother's persistent addresses across a couple of your debates exceed the bounds of appropriate colloquy. Unlike the forums, you've got work to do here and can't just ignore his agrressions.
Brother-
Will you please do us all the favor of backing off Rayan in these debates and generally for the time being? If you can't, I'm going to recommend action. Certainly, the accusations of being a danger to one's own children based on religious belief by itself infringes on our code of conduct. Your withdrawal here for the sake of clean debate without distraction would be appreciated. Thank you.
False. I'm saying that just about any standard definition of gender should disprove your case utterly. Of course, you know this because you avoided that standard definition as if it had COVID. When the instigator fails to define any key term according to standard sources, the challenger has an opening to define that term and perhaps use a variation that falsifies your argument outright (a very easy task in this particular). When I debate, I try to define every key term as favorably and as narrowly as possible right up front then use those confines to restrict my opponent's possibilities. You have essentially asserted that term X has only one meaning but then you failed to use mainstream sources to document assertion (because those sources don't support your claim). You could have made your definition a condition of debate but then your debate is reduced to truism- "assuming that term X only means Y, X means Y."
Dude isn't logical. Earlier he concluded that their are only 4 ethical frameworks just because you can divide ethical frameworks into four general categories.
There are 5 generally recognized frameworks that experienced argument relies on when debating public policy.
If I debated him for example and mentioned ethical egoism as an ethical position, he would legit be confused
I suppose you could call egoism an ethical framework but psychologists more regularly refer to such a framework as sociopathy, and no logical thinker would be persuaded. As Spock would say, "Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."
To me, one of the great WHAT IFs of world history is what if Great Britain had trusted the wisdom of Voltaire and Hume and Smith and simply offered the whole franchise to the Americas, India, Africa, Middle East- as subjected people rose up and demanded equality, what if Great Britain had simply recognized that equality (that was, essentially, the philosophy of the English elite in the late 18th century). Instead of fighting for control and eventually losing the US, Canada, Australia, Hong Kong, SIngapore, India, South Africa, Egypt, etc what all those peoples were still citizens of the greatest nation ever, with London its capitol? There may still have been world wars but they would probably have come earlier with smaller death toll but I think the UK would have been so dominant that perhap we'd now have something more one world government. Would one world government as defined by England be a sustainable and enduring model? Hard to say with certainty, but I do think that British stinginess with the Imperial citizen franchise cost England a real shot at still being the world's one great superpower.
And I am not interested in debating you on this. I was pointing out that you didn't vote in a tabula rasa fashion
False. I have a long track record of voting against my bias.
and therefore you voted incorrectly. Feel free to disagree with me.
It's just sour grapes from one of the less mature assholes on this site. I have no problem voting for you in a debate.
You are trying to attack my arguments, which is pointless.
False. You disrespected the debate rules and I penalized you for it. If the rules said no forfeits, I have and would rule against the first forfeiter every time irregardless of the quality of argument. Not every voter works that way but I'm a stickler for the rules when judging. As I said, your argument was irrational but I liked your energy. I'm not required to find a stupid argument more persuasive just because it was presented with greater confidence then a reasonable argument wanting more evidence.
I will likely be reviewing your other votes to see if you just in general vote incorrectly
Terrific. Elect a President to be an Ombudsman and in a matter of weeks he's playing Gestapo for the right-wing element on this site. You'll find that my votes are consistently challenged and consistently allowed to stand (2 votes have been removed out of 371 votes. How many votes of YOURS have been removed over your many, many multi-accounts Mr. President?
"There are five generally recognized ethical frameworks in philosophy: utilitarian, human rights, common good, fairness, and virtue. Self-determination is not an ethical framework and you don't seem to know much about ethical framework" Can you copy and paste where con made this argument?
CON never asserted an ethical framework, he just ignored your phony claims of having presented one.
"more preferable than not doing said action." Also please copy and paste where con objects to this interpretation of the definition in round 2.
I can't believe you missed it . First argument in Round 2 and essentially the essence of CON's victory:
You asserted: This definition doesn't leave an alternative between invading Poland and some other action, but between invading Poland or taking no action.”"
CON objects:
######################
"Pro is using his own interpretation of what the word means. I believe voters should disregard this for two reasons.
Nothing about the definition disallows arguments appealing to morality.
Whenever the term ‘justified’ is used in public discourse, it is specifically addressing morality and ethics.
Let’s examine this debate’s version of the word
Justified-
1- "having, done for, or marked by a good or legitimate reason"
Good- 1. Morally excellent; virtuous; righteous, pious. 2. That which is morally right; righteousness. (Oxford Languages & Dictionary.com)
Legitimate- Fair and reasonable. (Macmillan)
Now the second definition deals with which option is more preferable.
Preferable- More desirable or suitable. (Oxford Languages.)
This leaves us with a fundamental question, more preferable to whom?
More preferable to a psychopathic absurdist like Mein Kampf perhaps. But not more preferable to people of reason, and certainly not more preferable to the rest of the world.
(Since the majority don’t support it, I’ll consider the second part of the definition a win for me. Unless Pro can prove me wrong with statistics.)
We are now left with the first definition, and that is whether Germany had a morally right or fair reason for invading Poland.
##########################
This voter, persuaded by CON's common sense reliance on the widely accepted, Oxford dictionary definition of JUSTIFIED and NOT the Wylted special definition of JUSTIFIED, agrees with CON when he asks us to disregard your definition. DIsregarding your specially customized definiton, your lone argument collapses as not meeting any ordinary understanding of the word JUSTIFIED. Moreover, by acceptance of this debate, you agreed to CON's Oxford definition of JUSTIFIED as the standard you must prove, then you immediately broke your agreement and moved the goalposts by re-defining JUSTIFIED to meet your personal need.
Justified: having, done for, or marked by a good or legitimate reason; more preferable than not doing said action."
The above was in the description and stated action preferable to inaction (aka not doing action).
As I explained in my vote, not doing said action =/= inaction. A justified action should always be better than not doing the justified action but that in no way suggests that a justified action should always be better than nothing (i.e. the heart of your arguement).
Tabula rasa means blank slate. You should be essentially acting like a naive alien from outer space when judging debates. I will do a walk through of my next few debate judgements to show you.
Yeah, Tabula Rasa is a noun not an adjective the way you used it in a sentence.
I like, even prefer arguments that contradict and challenge the established judgements of history (see my takes on the Treaty of Versailles, WIlliam Wallace, Cold War definitons of Socialism, R.E. Lee's and George Washington's generalship, etc) but such a re-interpretation has to have good reasoning and evidence behind it. Your childish argument was that Hitler was justified to go to war because his people might be hungry some day- literally a justification for war by any nation at any time in history and therefore useless in explaining Hitler's terrible choice. Tablula Rasa means I come to judge without any pre-existing bias (which is always true of my votes), not that I come without any pre-existing opinion (which is impossible, I have an opinion about everything). You had a burden to prove that the decision to invade Poland was objectively better, wiser, appropriate to the situation than not invading Poland. Instead, you only argued that Hitler had an excuse in Malthusianism and pretended that met your burden by pretending to misunderstand the definiton of JUSTIFIED. That's not the way to win a debate. At least, CON played by the rules set out and showed that Hitler's decision was predetermined, not based on the existing circumstances of isolation provoked by Hitler's government.
Ultimately, your arguement depended on a successful kritik of CON's definiton of JUSTIFIED. You didn't challenge CON's usage (for example, CON didn't cite a standard dictionary support for his usage) and you didn't find any evidence supporting your crazy, unsupportable redefintion of the word JUSTIFIED to mean any act that's better than doing nothing. And then you didn't even bother to prove that invasion was better than starvation, you only cited the generic, ever-present potential threat of over-population as entirely sufficient. Sorry, but that's a weak-ass kritik by any standard and your argument deserves to lose against just about any dull recitiation of fact.
It's in the definition of the debate provided in the description and restated in round 1. Even if my interpretation is ridiculous, it is up to con to point that out, not you.
False. You reneged on the terms of the debate by badly misinterpreting the defintion of JUSTIFIED. You agreed to abide by ONE rule offered by the instigator, broke it instantly and then piled your entire argument on to that faulty misinterpretation. A debater can only point out cheating by his opponent, he doesn't need to nor should he give the cheater power by making the argument all about the cheat. CON pointed out that you abused the defintion and I think that's undeniable.
As far as ethical framework is concerned we have the right to self determination as defined by me and expanded on every round because it went unchallenged, among many other things
Wrong. There are five generally recognized ethical frameworks in philosophy: utilitarian, human rights, common good, fairness, and virtue. Self-determination is not an ethical framework and you don't seem to know much about ethical frameworks. That's fine- I don't usually rely on them myself. However, you wasted a lot of time in this debate beating up your opponent for not accepting your ethical framework when it is clear then and now that you don't have a grasp on ethical frameworks. CON was having enough trouble stating his argument without explaining you blunders to you.
"Just don't vote on any of my debates until you properly learn how to use tabula rasa. Look at literally any vote by Barney or whiteflame."
Mr. President- please go sit on a swastika made of razor blades. You have no authority to tell me when and how I may vote and my voting record on this website stands head, shoulders, cock, and boot above your excrebable, biased, oft removed, flaccid stabs at voting. How many times has Barney or Whiteflame had to scoop up the poop you call your unbiased judgement? Dozens? Hundreds?
BTW, look up the definition of TABULA RASA and JUSTIFIED. You will learn you are using those words incorrectly.
I was reading the vote straight through until I realized it wasn't tabula rasa and then I started skipping around. I believe that con's use of quora was criticized and if this was a 7 point debate, he would have awarded me sources but there is literally no mention that one of my sources was "some guy on storm front I think"
Too bad you didn't bother to read my vote. You would have learned that both of your "beliefs" are groundless. I gave the advantage in SOURCES to CON, specifically I gave CON's performance a B- and your performance in SOURCES a D-. I specifically noted the low energy lameness of citing "some guy."
"I think in a 7 point debate he may have tied it, if we take his words seriously. I would have received grammar and sources while con won on arguments, LOL"
As anybody who reads my vote will discover, I would have awarded arguments and sources to CON and no advantage to either for GRAMMAR or CONDUCT.
The standard to be met is JUSTIFIED according to the definition agreed before the debate.
"having, done for, or marked by a good or legitimate reason; more preferable than not doing said action."
that is,
doing x is > not doing x
PRO badly fails to comprehend this straightforward definition and misinterprets the 2nd clause to mean: " an action should be preferable to inaction." but that's just flat out false.
That is,
doing x is > doing nothing
that's quite blinkered and quite distant from the semantic heart of justice. Done right, a good justification exists before the result is known. A police shooting can be justified before shooting, SHOULD always be justified before shooting , even if the result is the death of an innocent. Of course, it would have been better to do nothing but that fact has little bearing on whether the shooting was justified. There are many justified acts that are not better than doing nothing.
A failure to comprehend the inherent nature of JUSTIFICATION loses PRO this debate.
PRO falsely suggests that CON has a burden to show that German inaction would have been an improvement on the worst event in human history. Literally, google "worst event in human history" and the very effect caused by Hitler's decision to invade Poland pops up as the very first answer. SInce nobody has yet to prove that any event even CAN be worse than WWII, we may with sound reasons assume that any possible result from a German failure to attack Poland would have, at the very least,ALWAYS been an improvement upon the subsequent catastrophe.
CON argues that Germany's invasion of Poland was unnecessary and dihonest. CON makes several points:
1. Germany and Poland had a truce. Breaking this truce was morally and ethically wrong, and it also damaged Germany's reputation in the international community.
2. Poland was not a military threat to Germany, as Germany had superior military capabilities.
3. Hitler's justification for the invasion was propaganda, and he staged attacks on Germany to frame Poland as the aggressor.
4. The invasion of Poland was the catalyst World War II, which Germany ultimately lost.
Overall, CON's argument is that Germany's invasion of Poland was unnecessary, strategically unwise, and morally wrong. While CON provides some evidence to support these claims, including quotes from historians and information about false-flag attacks staged by the Germans to justify the invasion, history's judgement of Germany's invasion of Poland is very substantially and eloquently documented and Pro's effort in backing his claims felt flimsy next to weight of available evidence.
PRO argues that Hitler was motivated by the concept of Malthusianism, which proposes that the human population will eventually outgrow the availability of resources. PRO reasons that Hitler saw the Malthusian trap as a significant problem that would lead to disaster if Germany was not proactive. The solution, according to the argument, was to create Lebensraum, which means living space in German, for Germans by acquiring more land in Eastern Europe. This expansion of living space, according to the argument, was necessary to prevent the catastrophe of overpopulation and the subsequent scarcity of resources. The argument concludes that that Hitler's policies to create Lebensraum were necessary to preserve the German people's way of life.
CON correctly counters that PRO's interpretation of the term JUSTIFIED is misguided, that whenever JUSTIFIED is used in public discourse, it specifically addresses morality and ethics. This voter disagrees, actions can also be justified by a wide range of values, but critically, this voter agrees that PRO's interpretation of JUSTIFIED as any action that improves on inaction is wrong and contrary to the agreed terms of this debate. CON further challenges PRO's argument that Germany's invasion of Poland was justified on the grounds of self-preservation and freedom, as Hitler's actions were self-inflicted, that Hitler's commitment to human freedom was insincere (to risk offense by understatement), and most importantly that there were alternative solutions to prevent the Malthusian disaster. Finally, CON suggests that Hitler's invasion of Poland was motivated by his ego and vengeance, rather than any legitimate reason, and the pretext for the invasion was based on slander. Unfortunately for CON, he does almost nothing to support any of these claims when, as said before, the abundance of literature supporting any of these arguments surpasses the wish of an historical scholar. Quorum is never a legitimate source for historic analysis and CON astonishingy offers no other sources.
Although PRO loses this debate by monkeying with the established terms, CON loses authority as a credible thinker on the subject of causes of WWII here by merely, lazily, declaiming that PRO is wrong without giving us any of the voluminous evidence that shows PRO is wrong.
PRO faslsely claims CON ignored his single Round1 argument but PRO is referring to his nonsense re-interpretation of the term JUSTIFIED and not PRO's actual argument or CON's refutation, which was quite direct: "Hitler and Germany never claimed Malthusian as a reason," even if it is true that CON's support was weak. PRO dishonestly claims that this means that CON has accepted PRO's ethical framework but in fact, CON was the only one to have mentioned ethics in ROUND1 and PRO won't lay out PRO's own ethical argument until later in R2. PRO fails to identify which ethical framework applies and of the five this voter is familiar with, none reasonably apply to PRO's "fear of hunger justifies any violence " framework. PRO repeats that the invasion of Poland was more preferable than taking no action. PRO offers no evidence to support this claim. PRO argues that the motive for Germany's invasion of Poland is not important but then suggests that Germans were motivated by vengeance (reinforcing CON) including statistics about Danzig and claims of Polish atrocities against Germans. PRO argues that the resources of the Earth are finite and that populations grow faster than the ability to exploit those resources, leading to Malthusian traps. SInce both conditions have always been true, PRO essentially claims that any nation is justified by hunger to violence at any time. PRO never argues that Germany was unique in this justificatioin or that Poland was not just a justified by the reasons in any persecution of ethnic Germans. PRO hypocritically condemns the British and French Empire's colonial exploitations while tauting the necessity of Geman colonial exploitation.
In R3, CON merely repeats his arguments when he has been given good opportunity to expand on them. Most economists point out that Germany's prospects were in fact, excellent if only the Nazis hadn't obscured the national vision with black colored glasses. Unlike the French and Austro-Hungarian Empires, Germany emerged from WWI with its Industrial Economy intact. Russia and the Ottoman collapsed without achieving a true Industrial economy. Most of Continental Europe from the Rhine River east to Asia needed to industrialize and had food aplenty to trade for factory made goods, cars, airplanes, refrigerators, radios and Germany was the closest, cheapest, Industrial economy massively connected by rail and roadway. England had India, France had North Africa but Eastern Europe was worth many times either nation in GDP and the people didn't need to coerced to trade their agricultural wealth for modern convenience. If Germany had forsworn war and merely recognized an America-sized trade advantage lying for thousand of mile east and south of them, Germany would have been the nuclear Superpower competing with the US in the second half of the 20th century, not the USSR. CON is absolutely correct that Germany had an alternative in trade but his failure provide evidence empties the argument. Likewise, the German people had many better alternatives in government to their chosen dictatorship by an ultra-violent, mentally ill failed artist, fairly tried and fairly convicted for treason and failed coup. Hitler's proven contempt for a free Germany should have disqualified him from any German leadership but Germany forgave Hitler his incompetance and willingly surrendered their rights to him for the opportunity to dispose of the Jews. This anti-semitism, too, is part of Germany's blindness to economic oppotrunity- the notion of working with Jews and and Slavs and Poles and Serbs and Turks was just not part of the German notion of utopia. CON has the truth of it but doesn't seem to know who to enliven his truth with facts. PRO has no facts but his lively conduct should have won him this debate if only he hadn't failed to abide by the rules of the debate.
CON gets his act together in R4- a too succinct but well made case. Above all, CON argues that Hitler planned to invade Poland in Mein Kampf, 14 years before the decsion to invade Poland. The German people read Mein Kampf and understood that Hitler planned to invade Poland. Hitler didn't choose to invade Poland, rather Gemany chose to empower Hitler who had long since promised to invade Poland. This single fact, agreed as true by both sides, disproves PRO's case well enough
PRO claims again that CON dropped arguments but this is bullshit. CON answered PRO far more directly than the reverse. PRO keeps trying to change the subject.
PRO claims the judges may not like that the definition was interpreted that way, but con drops that argument and he should be made to pay. Bullshit. Whether I like PRO's definiton or not has nothing to do with the fact that PRO agreed to abide by exactly one defined rule and that was the definition of JUSTIFICATION. Deliberately or no, PRO very badly misinterprets that 2nd clause and since PRO's re-definition is excluded by the rules, CON has no obligation to treat an obv illegitimate re-definiton as legit. Arguments non-sequitur to the central claim need not be addressed by the opposition and incur no penalty for ingoring such distractions. PRO only made one pretty weak argument and now relies heavily on crying fouls. PRO says CON can't make arguments in the final round but that was never in the rules. The single rule CON did ask for agreement on, PRO totally ignored.
CON's sources were B-. Quorum is no kind of source and the first three rounds needed way more sourcing. PRO's sources were D- Chat GPT, Random post, PRO sticks his whole case upon his blinkered definition of JUSTIFICATION but never thinks to provide one objective source that backs up his definition. CON should have switched to PRO's method of recording sources and used all the extra space for argument.
grammar was good. Best grammar and style from Wylted I have ever seen, in fact. Lancelot might want to take some style pointers away from this debate.
Conduct was OK.
Interesting subject. I'd like to see more impressive arguments on either side.
The RISE of SOCIAL MEDIA as a PRIMARY SOURCE of NEWS DISTRIBUTION does MORE HARM than GOOD
Ultimately, CON loses this debate because of a significant disconnect between thesis and most of his arguments. CON's definitons all seem pretty on point but CON's first three arguments address how social media can provide advantages to law enforcement. While law enforcement certainly is a fundamental interest of journalism, PRO correctly argues that's not the same thing as news journalism- the collection, process, and distribution of current information about public interests including law enforcement.
The fourth point notes how social media has revolutionized journalism but, as PRO counters, without describing any public improvement or benefit by that revolutionary change.
The fifth point highlights how social media has created more jobs for journalists but more doesn't always mean better as PRO retorts.
***( Pew reports that there has been 28% decline since 2008 in people whose job is to actually investigate and report news stories. The point about where do draw the line between "journalists" and "employees of media calling themselves news" is debatable but I still consider it convention wisdom that there are far fewer journalists now than in previous decades. Newsrooms used to support reporters in every state legisture, many city councils, often supported a number of foreign correspondents- all of that is mostly in the past now. Nevertheless, both CON and PRO agreed that there are more journalism jobs than before so neither side gets a disadvantage for being misinformed here).
The final point addresses how social media has made E-Therapy more accessible to those who cannot access in-person therapy. Again, PRO points out that medical treatment is not news reporting.
For ALL six of CON's arguments, I find myself agreeing with PRO that CON failed to show one solid argument resembling "the rise of social media as a primary source of news distribution does more good than harm because..." 4 claims were not examples of "primary source of news," 2 examples failed to show more good than harm.
PRO wastes time on definitions and framework- having accepted CON's definitions up front, PRO is not at liberty to offer an alternative set of definitons. CON's definition and framework stands. Nevertheless, PRO establishes within that framework a few of the current impacts of social media as a news source, demonstrating how the harms it causes to society are significant enough to outweigh the benefits. PRO points out that social media platforms often recommend news to users based on their past interests, creating echo chambers and reinforcing biases, which can have serious real-world harm. Additionally, social media news is far less reliable and accurate than news from traditional sources, and using social media as a primary source of news can cause serious harms to media literacy.
CON correctly objects to alternative definitions. But CON loses credibility trying to argue that improved criminal justice is the same thing as the news. CON fades a little more challenging PRO's use of a Forbes's article since as PRO points out, the facts cited are not disputed. CON misses the point by countering that innaccuracy, echo chambers, etc are not problems that began with social media and therefore not to blame: just because social media didn't invent the problem doesn't mean they didn't exacerbate the problem and the question we are trying to answer is degree of harm, not origin- more harm than good. CON's outrageous claim that "Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube use fact-checking features to erase harmful or misleading information and hold people accountable for lies," was very discrediting- almost as if CON does not have a handle on the scale or impact of current events. CON rapid fires a bunch of ways social media helps journalists without citation:
more jobs (I'm don't think research would back this)
improved journalistic standards (I don't think experts in journalism would agree with this claim)
made research easier (obviously true and obviously a net good- this is CON's best argument, though unsubstantiated)
more jobs for disabled people (100% non-sequitur)
CON then gives us five ways in which Social Media Saves Lives, none of which are relevant to social media as a primary source of news.
In the final round, CON tries to his defend his conflation of "social media" with "social media as a primary source of news, using example from Round1 that illustrate murderers who were radicalized online and were using social media as a stage to publicize their crimes with the hopes of elevation to martyrdom. Yes, such publc acts of extremity make the cop's job easier but this voter fails to understand how such acts are supposed to improve the condition of any news consumer.
PRO's focus on impacts was particularly illustrative. In fact, I found CON's impacts less convincing overall than did PRO. CON was right about sticking to defintions and PRO definitely loses that point but as far as the actual balance of harm vs. good when it comes to way social media distributes the news, PRO's arguments overwhelmed CON's in both quantity and quality.
do you feel that he violated his own rule in round 2 and should be held to that standard? seeing he is holding con to his rules?
not really, if we adhering to the strictist interpretaton of the rules then CON lost according to the agreed-upon rule and no further argument was required or even wanted. It is reasonable for PRO to conserve effort here until we know whether CON has any game at all.
Forfeit=auto-loss solves such conundrums and there are many. In any live debate, a debater who failed to show up for one full argument round would lose automaticaly. I think Viper should win this on conduct for forfeit and rules violation, so long as Viper keeps updating PRO's argument and CON keeps forfeiting.
You are using the wrong word. The word you mean to use is BONDAGE. BONDAGE is the "state of being owned by a person, being property" SLAVES are always humans by definition. For the same reason it would be the wrong usage to refer to your pet dog as your slave, it would be the wrong usage to refer to livestock as slaves.
If you'd like to have that debate, I am willing but I don't want to hear any petty bitching about "oh, that's not my topic, I'm talking about factory farming." I have no interest in debating the evils of factory farming with you but if the topic is your wrong vocabulary then I'm fine with that.
. Santa deniers spreading misinformation is a threat to democracy.
It's not sporting to affirm evidence presented to a debate in progress.
Let's remember that troll debates are not eligible for moderation and so do not satisfy the qualification: "Complete at least two rated debates which are eligible for moderation, each containing no more than a single forfeiture, using the open voting system (as opposed to judicial selection)."
I am guessing that Sidewalker can vote because of the second qualification, " or make 100 non-spam forum posts."
I think the spirit of competitive debate is enhanced by new voters doing a couple of real debates that, win or lose, demonstrate the voters understanding of language, logic, persuasion, grammar, style, research, evidence. I think everybody's more comfortable being evaluated by DARTers who can demonstrate they understand the basics and are using the same basic criteria as debaters everywhere.
Watching SIr Lancelot help to on board voters with the least of effort, without demonstrating any actual debating skill or understanding read to me as a bad sign for the future freeness and fairness of debates on this site. What possible advantage can loading on more voters who haven't demonstrated their debate cred represent to the site? The advantage to the debater conducting the unproven voters is pretty obvious.
@Americandebater24
@TWS1405_2
@hey-yo
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: TWS1405_2 // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 7 points to Con (Arguments, Sources, Legibility, Conduct)
>Reason for Decision:
Con provided better, far more well-grounded convincing arguments.
Con provided significantly more reliable sources.
Con provided significantly better legibility.
Con provided observably significantly better conduct.
Pro is clearly pro-criminal, Con is pro employee and employer safety, not to mention any position where an employee would come into contact with the public, thereby keeping the public safe.
>Reason for Mod Action:
All 4 of TWS's votes are manifestly insufficient.="To cast a sufficient vote, for each category awarded, a voter must explicitly perform the following tasks:"
" (1) Provide specific references to each side’s utilization within the said category."
" (2) Weigh the impacts against each other, including if any precluded others."
" (3) Explain the decision within the greater context of the debate."
"https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#casting-votes"
Furthermore, this VOTER demonstrates clear bias by basing votes on perceived traits of the debater rather than arguments in the debate (i.e. "Pro is clearly pro-criminal, Con is pro-employee." Since many debaters agree to support arguments that do not reflect their personal beliefs, any and all VOTES based on perceived beliefs are inherently disqualified. Likewise, any VOTE that includes irrelevent description of one or more debaters traits is disqualified.
**************************************************
Well, it is the first time I've ever run into him. I gave you two analogies: calling out answers in a trivia contest or a spelling bee. Think about hey-yo- maybe he wants to make an argument but you've already made the argument in the comments sections and now he looks like he's taking coaching from you. It is tempting to read an argument and then come back with your own argument but within the comments of the debate it is adding pressure to both sides who are supposed to be ignoring comments but are receiving automatic updates. If you really plan to vote, you are also advertising your prejudices before the debate is done and undermining your responsibility to be an objective critic. I see lots of cases where somebody is sparked by arguments in a debate and got to the forums with thier own take which seems perfectly acceptable.
After the Nuggets won in Miami last night, the Nugget's coach put a tight lid on any kind of celebrating he said, "Don't watch an TV, don't read any news pay zero attention to anybody's opinion, you haven't done anything until you've won the championship and you haven't won the championship until you've won four games." It is little like that in any contest: the last thing a contender needs during the contest is commentary from the sidelines: it just makes them question their own choices and raises questions about whose arguments really won the day. Unlike the Nuggets, these debaters are getting updates from commentary that they can't turn off and can't really ignore in case it is important information. Good form is to withhold actual critique or argument while the contest is underway.
Americandebater is new and may not yet have figured out that the first rule of fight club is always ignore TWS. I'm just saying you could choose to be less of a POS for once and cut the new guy some slack.
TWS- Your conduct here is obviously shitty and unsportsmanlike. Just as it would suck if somebody was calling out answers at a trivia contest or calling out spellings at a spelling bee, it takes a pretty anti-social person to be blasting counterarguments in the comments sections while two debaters are contesting the issue. I don't consider this behavior a code of conduct violation necessarily but you are definitely fucking up some of your fellow debaters' fun for no good reason and objectively anti-debate. I would strongly encourage you to reconsider your behavior here and hold back, at least until after arguments are complete.
R1PRO: Constructive
PRO presents Peter Singer's logic:
P1: Donating to effective social causes can prevent very bad things from happening.
P2: Individuals have excess wealth that can be used for donations.
P3: Excess wealth is of comparably minimal moral significance.
C1: Individuals can prevent very bad things from happening without sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance.
P4: If individuals can prevent very bad things from happening without sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance, they have a moral obligation to do so.
C2: After meeting their basic needs, individuals have a moral obligation to donate all remaining wealth to effective social causes.
PRO uses an analogy of a drowning child to demonstrate the consistency of the moral obligation to donate,
even if it inconveniences the observer.
The author argues that this obligation should be extended to donating to charitable causes.
The objection is summarized as the idea that an unreasonably demanding moral theory should not be accepted.
PRO counters by highlighting the perspective of those in need and the fulfillment of basic needs before donations.
PRO argues that even if the moral obligation is demanding, it should not be rejected based solely on intuitiveness.
Overall, PRO advocates for individuals to donate their excess wealth to effective social causes after meeting their basic needs, based on the principles of preventing harm, moral obligation, and consistency with established ethical values.
CON addresses the proposition that moral obligations, specifically the obligation to give up all wealth to the poor, are impractical and would have negative real-world consequences. CON argues against the proposition by outlining two main points: the impact on poverty and the issue of national sovereignty.
CON claims with good evidence presented that luxury industries primarily employ the lower and middle classes. These industries contribute significantly to the economy, and a reduction in luxury consumption would lead to unemployment and an increase in poverty. CON points out that even the poor contribute to luxury industries, and a rapid reduction in luxury purchases would have devastating effects on employment and the pool of people requiring aid, even extending internationally. Additionally, the author argues that as luxury industries decline, so will donations to international NGOs, further decreasing resources available to the poor.
CON references Hannah Arendt's concept of citizenship as "the right to have rights" and argues that sovereignty is undermined by the proposition, reducesing a state's accountability to its citizens and increasing dependency on external sourcess uncontrolled by democratic oversight. CON further argues that aid can hamper the development of domestic institutions and infrastructure when overdependency on external sources of funding may promote instiutional dependency, weakness, or neglect. CON gives examples of how aid has led to brain drain and a lack of citizen accountability in healthcare services which , in turn, undermines the expression of political sovereignty and places power in the hands of NGOs and int'l orgs.
Overall, CON asserts that the proposition's implementation of moral obligations would have unintended negative consequences in terms of increased poverty and reduced national sovereignty. The argument aims to demonstrate the impracticality and potential harm of abstract moral obligations when applied in the real world.
In, R2, PRO's counterargument wrecks his own case utterly. PRO argues that the resolution refers to individual obligations, not collective obligations, and each individual's moral obligation is independent of others. PRO therefore argues that humans should pursue individual morality even at the expense of the collective good. This VOTER considers the individual's highest obligation as to the next generation and is not interested in moral plans that undermine that collective good.
Then PRO strangely argues that the collective harm might not be so harmful if nobody paid attention to PRO's argument- if few or none acted on PRO's moral obligation. This VOTER considers this argument in favor of CON's plan.
Then PRO argues that the current moral obligation might be transient in the future which is unknowable and has no impact on this discussion.
This VOTER disagrees that CON's framework was missing or flawed. CON's framework of collective good is objectively superior to PRO's framework of individual good. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
CON effectively quotes SInger to undermine PRO's impracticality. CON illustrates the contradiction in PRO's argument nicely, "
Pro is stuck in a double bind. If they admit that the moral obligation is a mere “suggestion,” they cannot derive any impact from their moral obligation. If they admit that the concrete analysis of moral obligations is a necessary to assess the value of the obligation, they must cede to my impacts."
CON also slices up PRO's expansive conception of basic needs to lessen the hardship of charity on the rich while failing to recognize the concurrent expansion of basic needs for the poor, making a bottomless pit of need and a fuzzy line of demarcation for the poor.
This VOTER agrees that PRO presented a pretty hard fast moral line of obligation in R1 and then spent R2 trying to make his radicalism more palatable by fuzzying Singer's syllogism wherever possiible.
ARGUMENTS to CON.
SOURCES also go to CON. Yes PRO's sources were more sporadic and less scholarly but the most stand-out difference was the way PRO used sources to define terms and echo his argument while CON used to support speciific practical claims and predictions based on real world data. CON's sources gave his argument the credibility necessary when making claims about future impacts and illustrated the lack of such supporting data for PRO's claim.
Nicely argued by both sides. Particular kudos to CON for the clarity and command of his English.
Thanks, Brother. I do appreciate it.
I agree that Brother's persistent addresses across a couple of your debates exceed the bounds of appropriate colloquy. Unlike the forums, you've got work to do here and can't just ignore his agrressions.
Brother-
Will you please do us all the favor of backing off Rayan in these debates and generally for the time being? If you can't, I'm going to recommend action. Certainly, the accusations of being a danger to one's own children based on religious belief by itself infringes on our code of conduct. Your withdrawal here for the sake of clean debate without distraction would be appreciated. Thank you.
False. I'm saying that just about any standard definition of gender should disprove your case utterly. Of course, you know this because you avoided that standard definition as if it had COVID. When the instigator fails to define any key term according to standard sources, the challenger has an opening to define that term and perhaps use a variation that falsifies your argument outright (a very easy task in this particular). When I debate, I try to define every key term as favorably and as narrowly as possible right up front then use those confines to restrict my opponent's possibilities. You have essentially asserted that term X has only one meaning but then you failed to use mainstream sources to document assertion (because those sources don't support your claim). You could have made your definition a condition of debate but then your debate is reduced to truism- "assuming that term X only means Y, X means Y."
Dude isn't logical. Earlier he concluded that their are only 4 ethical frameworks just because you can divide ethical frameworks into four general categories.
There are 5 generally recognized frameworks that experienced argument relies on when debating public policy.
If I debated him for example and mentioned ethical egoism as an ethical position, he would legit be confused
I suppose you could call egoism an ethical framework but psychologists more regularly refer to such a framework as sociopathy, and no logical thinker would be persuaded. As Spock would say, "Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."
Unsuprisingly, BK flunks out on 3rd grade math
To me, one of the great WHAT IFs of world history is what if Great Britain had trusted the wisdom of Voltaire and Hume and Smith and simply offered the whole franchise to the Americas, India, Africa, Middle East- as subjected people rose up and demanded equality, what if Great Britain had simply recognized that equality (that was, essentially, the philosophy of the English elite in the late 18th century). Instead of fighting for control and eventually losing the US, Canada, Australia, Hong Kong, SIngapore, India, South Africa, Egypt, etc what all those peoples were still citizens of the greatest nation ever, with London its capitol? There may still have been world wars but they would probably have come earlier with smaller death toll but I think the UK would have been so dominant that perhap we'd now have something more one world government. Would one world government as defined by England be a sustainable and enduring model? Hard to say with certainty, but I do think that British stinginess with the Imperial citizen franchise cost England a real shot at still being the world's one great superpower.
And I am not interested in debating you on this. I was pointing out that you didn't vote in a tabula rasa fashion
False. I have a long track record of voting against my bias.
and therefore you voted incorrectly. Feel free to disagree with me.
It's just sour grapes from one of the less mature assholes on this site. I have no problem voting for you in a debate.
You are trying to attack my arguments, which is pointless.
False. You disrespected the debate rules and I penalized you for it. If the rules said no forfeits, I have and would rule against the first forfeiter every time irregardless of the quality of argument. Not every voter works that way but I'm a stickler for the rules when judging. As I said, your argument was irrational but I liked your energy. I'm not required to find a stupid argument more persuasive just because it was presented with greater confidence then a reasonable argument wanting more evidence.
I will likely be reviewing your other votes to see if you just in general vote incorrectly
Terrific. Elect a President to be an Ombudsman and in a matter of weeks he's playing Gestapo for the right-wing element on this site. You'll find that my votes are consistently challenged and consistently allowed to stand (2 votes have been removed out of 371 votes. How many votes of YOURS have been removed over your many, many multi-accounts Mr. President?
"There are five generally recognized ethical frameworks in philosophy: utilitarian, human rights, common good, fairness, and virtue. Self-determination is not an ethical framework and you don't seem to know much about ethical framework" Can you copy and paste where con made this argument?
CON never asserted an ethical framework, he just ignored your phony claims of having presented one.
"more preferable than not doing said action." Also please copy and paste where con objects to this interpretation of the definition in round 2.
I can't believe you missed it . First argument in Round 2 and essentially the essence of CON's victory:
You asserted: This definition doesn't leave an alternative between invading Poland and some other action, but between invading Poland or taking no action.”"
CON objects:
######################
"Pro is using his own interpretation of what the word means. I believe voters should disregard this for two reasons.
Nothing about the definition disallows arguments appealing to morality.
Whenever the term ‘justified’ is used in public discourse, it is specifically addressing morality and ethics.
Let’s examine this debate’s version of the word
Justified-
1- "having, done for, or marked by a good or legitimate reason"
Good- 1. Morally excellent; virtuous; righteous, pious. 2. That which is morally right; righteousness. (Oxford Languages & Dictionary.com)
Legitimate- Fair and reasonable. (Macmillan)
Now the second definition deals with which option is more preferable.
Preferable- More desirable or suitable. (Oxford Languages.)
This leaves us with a fundamental question, more preferable to whom?
More preferable to a psychopathic absurdist like Mein Kampf perhaps. But not more preferable to people of reason, and certainly not more preferable to the rest of the world.
(Since the majority don’t support it, I’ll consider the second part of the definition a win for me. Unless Pro can prove me wrong with statistics.)
We are now left with the first definition, and that is whether Germany had a morally right or fair reason for invading Poland.
##########################
This voter, persuaded by CON's common sense reliance on the widely accepted, Oxford dictionary definition of JUSTIFIED and NOT the Wylted special definition of JUSTIFIED, agrees with CON when he asks us to disregard your definition. DIsregarding your specially customized definiton, your lone argument collapses as not meeting any ordinary understanding of the word JUSTIFIED. Moreover, by acceptance of this debate, you agreed to CON's Oxford definition of JUSTIFIED as the standard you must prove, then you immediately broke your agreement and moved the goalposts by re-defining JUSTIFIED to meet your personal need.
Justified: having, done for, or marked by a good or legitimate reason; more preferable than not doing said action."
The above was in the description and stated action preferable to inaction (aka not doing action).
As I explained in my vote, not doing said action =/= inaction. A justified action should always be better than not doing the justified action but that in no way suggests that a justified action should always be better than nothing (i.e. the heart of your arguement).
Tabula rasa means blank slate. You should be essentially acting like a naive alien from outer space when judging debates. I will do a walk through of my next few debate judgements to show you.
Yeah, Tabula Rasa is a noun not an adjective the way you used it in a sentence.
I like, even prefer arguments that contradict and challenge the established judgements of history (see my takes on the Treaty of Versailles, WIlliam Wallace, Cold War definitons of Socialism, R.E. Lee's and George Washington's generalship, etc) but such a re-interpretation has to have good reasoning and evidence behind it. Your childish argument was that Hitler was justified to go to war because his people might be hungry some day- literally a justification for war by any nation at any time in history and therefore useless in explaining Hitler's terrible choice. Tablula Rasa means I come to judge without any pre-existing bias (which is always true of my votes), not that I come without any pre-existing opinion (which is impossible, I have an opinion about everything). You had a burden to prove that the decision to invade Poland was objectively better, wiser, appropriate to the situation than not invading Poland. Instead, you only argued that Hitler had an excuse in Malthusianism and pretended that met your burden by pretending to misunderstand the definiton of JUSTIFIED. That's not the way to win a debate. At least, CON played by the rules set out and showed that Hitler's decision was predetermined, not based on the existing circumstances of isolation provoked by Hitler's government.
Ultimately, your arguement depended on a successful kritik of CON's definiton of JUSTIFIED. You didn't challenge CON's usage (for example, CON didn't cite a standard dictionary support for his usage) and you didn't find any evidence supporting your crazy, unsupportable redefintion of the word JUSTIFIED to mean any act that's better than doing nothing. And then you didn't even bother to prove that invasion was better than starvation, you only cited the generic, ever-present potential threat of over-population as entirely sufficient. Sorry, but that's a weak-ass kritik by any standard and your argument deserves to lose against just about any dull recitiation of fact.
It's in the definition of the debate provided in the description and restated in round 1. Even if my interpretation is ridiculous, it is up to con to point that out, not you.
False. You reneged on the terms of the debate by badly misinterpreting the defintion of JUSTIFIED. You agreed to abide by ONE rule offered by the instigator, broke it instantly and then piled your entire argument on to that faulty misinterpretation. A debater can only point out cheating by his opponent, he doesn't need to nor should he give the cheater power by making the argument all about the cheat. CON pointed out that you abused the defintion and I think that's undeniable.
As far as ethical framework is concerned we have the right to self determination as defined by me and expanded on every round because it went unchallenged, among many other things
Wrong. There are five generally recognized ethical frameworks in philosophy: utilitarian, human rights, common good, fairness, and virtue. Self-determination is not an ethical framework and you don't seem to know much about ethical frameworks. That's fine- I don't usually rely on them myself. However, you wasted a lot of time in this debate beating up your opponent for not accepting your ethical framework when it is clear then and now that you don't have a grasp on ethical frameworks. CON was having enough trouble stating his argument without explaining you blunders to you.
"Just don't vote on any of my debates until you properly learn how to use tabula rasa. Look at literally any vote by Barney or whiteflame."
Mr. President- please go sit on a swastika made of razor blades. You have no authority to tell me when and how I may vote and my voting record on this website stands head, shoulders, cock, and boot above your excrebable, biased, oft removed, flaccid stabs at voting. How many times has Barney or Whiteflame had to scoop up the poop you call your unbiased judgement? Dozens? Hundreds?
BTW, look up the definition of TABULA RASA and JUSTIFIED. You will learn you are using those words incorrectly.
Was your re-interpretation of the concept of JUSTIFICATION, strategy or just lack of interest in dictionary defintions?
Can you please state what ethical framework you were using?
I was reading the vote straight through until I realized it wasn't tabula rasa and then I started skipping around. I believe that con's use of quora was criticized and if this was a 7 point debate, he would have awarded me sources but there is literally no mention that one of my sources was "some guy on storm front I think"
Too bad you didn't bother to read my vote. You would have learned that both of your "beliefs" are groundless. I gave the advantage in SOURCES to CON, specifically I gave CON's performance a B- and your performance in SOURCES a D-. I specifically noted the low energy lameness of citing "some guy."
"I think in a 7 point debate he may have tied it, if we take his words seriously. I would have received grammar and sources while con won on arguments, LOL"
As anybody who reads my vote will discover, I would have awarded arguments and sources to CON and no advantage to either for GRAMMAR or CONDUCT.
The standard to be met is JUSTIFIED according to the definition agreed before the debate.
"having, done for, or marked by a good or legitimate reason; more preferable than not doing said action."
that is,
doing x is > not doing x
PRO badly fails to comprehend this straightforward definition and misinterprets the 2nd clause to mean: " an action should be preferable to inaction." but that's just flat out false.
That is,
doing x is > doing nothing
that's quite blinkered and quite distant from the semantic heart of justice. Done right, a good justification exists before the result is known. A police shooting can be justified before shooting, SHOULD always be justified before shooting , even if the result is the death of an innocent. Of course, it would have been better to do nothing but that fact has little bearing on whether the shooting was justified. There are many justified acts that are not better than doing nothing.
A failure to comprehend the inherent nature of JUSTIFICATION loses PRO this debate.
PRO falsely suggests that CON has a burden to show that German inaction would have been an improvement on the worst event in human history. Literally, google "worst event in human history" and the very effect caused by Hitler's decision to invade Poland pops up as the very first answer. SInce nobody has yet to prove that any event even CAN be worse than WWII, we may with sound reasons assume that any possible result from a German failure to attack Poland would have, at the very least,ALWAYS been an improvement upon the subsequent catastrophe.
CON argues that Germany's invasion of Poland was unnecessary and dihonest. CON makes several points:
1. Germany and Poland had a truce. Breaking this truce was morally and ethically wrong, and it also damaged Germany's reputation in the international community.
2. Poland was not a military threat to Germany, as Germany had superior military capabilities.
3. Hitler's justification for the invasion was propaganda, and he staged attacks on Germany to frame Poland as the aggressor.
4. The invasion of Poland was the catalyst World War II, which Germany ultimately lost.
Overall, CON's argument is that Germany's invasion of Poland was unnecessary, strategically unwise, and morally wrong. While CON provides some evidence to support these claims, including quotes from historians and information about false-flag attacks staged by the Germans to justify the invasion, history's judgement of Germany's invasion of Poland is very substantially and eloquently documented and Pro's effort in backing his claims felt flimsy next to weight of available evidence.
PRO argues that Hitler was motivated by the concept of Malthusianism, which proposes that the human population will eventually outgrow the availability of resources. PRO reasons that Hitler saw the Malthusian trap as a significant problem that would lead to disaster if Germany was not proactive. The solution, according to the argument, was to create Lebensraum, which means living space in German, for Germans by acquiring more land in Eastern Europe. This expansion of living space, according to the argument, was necessary to prevent the catastrophe of overpopulation and the subsequent scarcity of resources. The argument concludes that that Hitler's policies to create Lebensraum were necessary to preserve the German people's way of life.
CON correctly counters that PRO's interpretation of the term JUSTIFIED is misguided, that whenever JUSTIFIED is used in public discourse, it specifically addresses morality and ethics. This voter disagrees, actions can also be justified by a wide range of values, but critically, this voter agrees that PRO's interpretation of JUSTIFIED as any action that improves on inaction is wrong and contrary to the agreed terms of this debate. CON further challenges PRO's argument that Germany's invasion of Poland was justified on the grounds of self-preservation and freedom, as Hitler's actions were self-inflicted, that Hitler's commitment to human freedom was insincere (to risk offense by understatement), and most importantly that there were alternative solutions to prevent the Malthusian disaster. Finally, CON suggests that Hitler's invasion of Poland was motivated by his ego and vengeance, rather than any legitimate reason, and the pretext for the invasion was based on slander. Unfortunately for CON, he does almost nothing to support any of these claims when, as said before, the abundance of literature supporting any of these arguments surpasses the wish of an historical scholar. Quorum is never a legitimate source for historic analysis and CON astonishingy offers no other sources.
Although PRO loses this debate by monkeying with the established terms, CON loses authority as a credible thinker on the subject of causes of WWII here by merely, lazily, declaiming that PRO is wrong without giving us any of the voluminous evidence that shows PRO is wrong.
PRO faslsely claims CON ignored his single Round1 argument but PRO is referring to his nonsense re-interpretation of the term JUSTIFIED and not PRO's actual argument or CON's refutation, which was quite direct: "Hitler and Germany never claimed Malthusian as a reason," even if it is true that CON's support was weak. PRO dishonestly claims that this means that CON has accepted PRO's ethical framework but in fact, CON was the only one to have mentioned ethics in ROUND1 and PRO won't lay out PRO's own ethical argument until later in R2. PRO fails to identify which ethical framework applies and of the five this voter is familiar with, none reasonably apply to PRO's "fear of hunger justifies any violence " framework. PRO repeats that the invasion of Poland was more preferable than taking no action. PRO offers no evidence to support this claim. PRO argues that the motive for Germany's invasion of Poland is not important but then suggests that Germans were motivated by vengeance (reinforcing CON) including statistics about Danzig and claims of Polish atrocities against Germans. PRO argues that the resources of the Earth are finite and that populations grow faster than the ability to exploit those resources, leading to Malthusian traps. SInce both conditions have always been true, PRO essentially claims that any nation is justified by hunger to violence at any time. PRO never argues that Germany was unique in this justificatioin or that Poland was not just a justified by the reasons in any persecution of ethnic Germans. PRO hypocritically condemns the British and French Empire's colonial exploitations while tauting the necessity of Geman colonial exploitation.
In R3, CON merely repeats his arguments when he has been given good opportunity to expand on them. Most economists point out that Germany's prospects were in fact, excellent if only the Nazis hadn't obscured the national vision with black colored glasses. Unlike the French and Austro-Hungarian Empires, Germany emerged from WWI with its Industrial Economy intact. Russia and the Ottoman collapsed without achieving a true Industrial economy. Most of Continental Europe from the Rhine River east to Asia needed to industrialize and had food aplenty to trade for factory made goods, cars, airplanes, refrigerators, radios and Germany was the closest, cheapest, Industrial economy massively connected by rail and roadway. England had India, France had North Africa but Eastern Europe was worth many times either nation in GDP and the people didn't need to coerced to trade their agricultural wealth for modern convenience. If Germany had forsworn war and merely recognized an America-sized trade advantage lying for thousand of mile east and south of them, Germany would have been the nuclear Superpower competing with the US in the second half of the 20th century, not the USSR. CON is absolutely correct that Germany had an alternative in trade but his failure provide evidence empties the argument. Likewise, the German people had many better alternatives in government to their chosen dictatorship by an ultra-violent, mentally ill failed artist, fairly tried and fairly convicted for treason and failed coup. Hitler's proven contempt for a free Germany should have disqualified him from any German leadership but Germany forgave Hitler his incompetance and willingly surrendered their rights to him for the opportunity to dispose of the Jews. This anti-semitism, too, is part of Germany's blindness to economic oppotrunity- the notion of working with Jews and and Slavs and Poles and Serbs and Turks was just not part of the German notion of utopia. CON has the truth of it but doesn't seem to know who to enliven his truth with facts. PRO has no facts but his lively conduct should have won him this debate if only he hadn't failed to abide by the rules of the debate.
CON gets his act together in R4- a too succinct but well made case. Above all, CON argues that Hitler planned to invade Poland in Mein Kampf, 14 years before the decsion to invade Poland. The German people read Mein Kampf and understood that Hitler planned to invade Poland. Hitler didn't choose to invade Poland, rather Gemany chose to empower Hitler who had long since promised to invade Poland. This single fact, agreed as true by both sides, disproves PRO's case well enough
PRO claims again that CON dropped arguments but this is bullshit. CON answered PRO far more directly than the reverse. PRO keeps trying to change the subject.
PRO claims the judges may not like that the definition was interpreted that way, but con drops that argument and he should be made to pay. Bullshit. Whether I like PRO's definiton or not has nothing to do with the fact that PRO agreed to abide by exactly one defined rule and that was the definition of JUSTIFICATION. Deliberately or no, PRO very badly misinterprets that 2nd clause and since PRO's re-definition is excluded by the rules, CON has no obligation to treat an obv illegitimate re-definiton as legit. Arguments non-sequitur to the central claim need not be addressed by the opposition and incur no penalty for ingoring such distractions. PRO only made one pretty weak argument and now relies heavily on crying fouls. PRO says CON can't make arguments in the final round but that was never in the rules. The single rule CON did ask for agreement on, PRO totally ignored.
CON's sources were B-. Quorum is no kind of source and the first three rounds needed way more sourcing. PRO's sources were D- Chat GPT, Random post, PRO sticks his whole case upon his blinkered definition of JUSTIFICATION but never thinks to provide one objective source that backs up his definition. CON should have switched to PRO's method of recording sources and used all the extra space for argument.
grammar was good. Best grammar and style from Wylted I have ever seen, in fact. Lancelot might want to take some style pointers away from this debate.
Conduct was OK.
Interesting subject. I'd like to see more impressive arguments on either side.
Oro's RFD Part I
The RISE of SOCIAL MEDIA as a PRIMARY SOURCE of NEWS DISTRIBUTION does MORE HARM than GOOD
Ultimately, CON loses this debate because of a significant disconnect between thesis and most of his arguments. CON's definitons all seem pretty on point but CON's first three arguments address how social media can provide advantages to law enforcement. While law enforcement certainly is a fundamental interest of journalism, PRO correctly argues that's not the same thing as news journalism- the collection, process, and distribution of current information about public interests including law enforcement.
The fourth point notes how social media has revolutionized journalism but, as PRO counters, without describing any public improvement or benefit by that revolutionary change.
The fifth point highlights how social media has created more jobs for journalists but more doesn't always mean better as PRO retorts.
***( Pew reports that there has been 28% decline since 2008 in people whose job is to actually investigate and report news stories. The point about where do draw the line between "journalists" and "employees of media calling themselves news" is debatable but I still consider it convention wisdom that there are far fewer journalists now than in previous decades. Newsrooms used to support reporters in every state legisture, many city councils, often supported a number of foreign correspondents- all of that is mostly in the past now. Nevertheless, both CON and PRO agreed that there are more journalism jobs than before so neither side gets a disadvantage for being misinformed here).
The final point addresses how social media has made E-Therapy more accessible to those who cannot access in-person therapy. Again, PRO points out that medical treatment is not news reporting.
For ALL six of CON's arguments, I find myself agreeing with PRO that CON failed to show one solid argument resembling "the rise of social media as a primary source of news distribution does more good than harm because..." 4 claims were not examples of "primary source of news," 2 examples failed to show more good than harm.
Oro's RFD Part II
PRO wastes time on definitions and framework- having accepted CON's definitions up front, PRO is not at liberty to offer an alternative set of definitons. CON's definition and framework stands. Nevertheless, PRO establishes within that framework a few of the current impacts of social media as a news source, demonstrating how the harms it causes to society are significant enough to outweigh the benefits. PRO points out that social media platforms often recommend news to users based on their past interests, creating echo chambers and reinforcing biases, which can have serious real-world harm. Additionally, social media news is far less reliable and accurate than news from traditional sources, and using social media as a primary source of news can cause serious harms to media literacy.
CON correctly objects to alternative definitions. But CON loses credibility trying to argue that improved criminal justice is the same thing as the news. CON fades a little more challenging PRO's use of a Forbes's article since as PRO points out, the facts cited are not disputed. CON misses the point by countering that innaccuracy, echo chambers, etc are not problems that began with social media and therefore not to blame: just because social media didn't invent the problem doesn't mean they didn't exacerbate the problem and the question we are trying to answer is degree of harm, not origin- more harm than good. CON's outrageous claim that "Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube use fact-checking features to erase harmful or misleading information and hold people accountable for lies," was very discrediting- almost as if CON does not have a handle on the scale or impact of current events. CON rapid fires a bunch of ways social media helps journalists without citation:
more jobs (I'm don't think research would back this)
improved journalistic standards (I don't think experts in journalism would agree with this claim)
made research easier (obviously true and obviously a net good- this is CON's best argument, though unsubstantiated)
more jobs for disabled people (100% non-sequitur)
CON then gives us five ways in which Social Media Saves Lives, none of which are relevant to social media as a primary source of news.
In the final round, CON tries to his defend his conflation of "social media" with "social media as a primary source of news, using example from Round1 that illustrate murderers who were radicalized online and were using social media as a stage to publicize their crimes with the hopes of elevation to martyrdom. Yes, such publc acts of extremity make the cop's job easier but this voter fails to understand how such acts are supposed to improve the condition of any news consumer.
PRO's focus on impacts was particularly illustrative. In fact, I found CON's impacts less convincing overall than did PRO. CON was right about sticking to defintions and PRO definitely loses that point but as far as the actual balance of harm vs. good when it comes to way social media distributes the news, PRO's arguments overwhelmed CON's in both quantity and quality.
do you feel that he violated his own rule in round 2 and should be held to that standard? seeing he is holding con to his rules?
not really, if we adhering to the strictist interpretaton of the rules then CON lost according to the agreed-upon rule and no further argument was required or even wanted. It is reasonable for PRO to conserve effort here until we know whether CON has any game at all.
Forfeit=auto-loss solves such conundrums and there are many. In any live debate, a debater who failed to show up for one full argument round would lose automaticaly. I think Viper should win this on conduct for forfeit and rules violation, so long as Viper keeps updating PRO's argument and CON keeps forfeiting.
-->
@oromagi
I think you mentioned you used to be in the army before, is that true?
nope! maybe Barney?
good to see you
3 days left no votes
Bump
Thx for voting
Thx for voting
2 days left no votes
try harder, lazybones
CON's ROUND 5 SOURCES:
https://factcheck.afp.com/http%253A%252F%252Fdoc.afp.com%252F9Q73XZ-1
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/531/98/
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/twenty-months-later-trump-isnt-done-decertification-push-rcna39088
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring
https://legis.wisconsin.gov/lab/media/3288/21-19full.pdf
https://legis.wisconsin.gov/lab/media/3288/21-19full.pdf
https://legis.wisconsin.gov/lab/media/3288/21-19full.pdf
https://legis.wisconsin.gov/lab/media/3288/21-19full.pdf
https://legis.wisconsin.gov/lab/media/3288/21-19full.pdf
https://legis.wisconsin.gov/lab/media/3288/21-19full.pdf
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/constitution/wi_unannotated
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/6/iv/87/6d
https://legis.wisconsin.gov/lab/media/3288/21-19full.pdf
https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/
https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/7/7/477823_2.pdf
full forfeit two days left
CON's R3 SOURCES:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/slavery
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/slavery?q=slavery
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/slavery
https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/person
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
CON's ROUND 4 SOURCES:
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/6/iv/87/6d
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/6/iv/87/
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-york-post/
https://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2017/sep/21/new-york-post/mostly-false-ted-cruz-same-senator-who-once-suppor/
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/planet-destroy-earth/
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hillary-clinton-regularly-had-her-maid-print-classified-documents/
https://nypost.com/2015/12/13/sensitive-principal-bans-santa-and-other-religious-symbols/
https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/oct/01/william-benson-huber/ny-post-op-ed-rebuts-starving-children-claim-was-n/
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-violate-mask-mandate/
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/migrant-kids-kamala-harris-book/
concession?
one week left, no votes
one week left- no votes
full forfeit. zero votes. five days left.
CON's ROUND2 SOURCES:
https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/person
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/person
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/person?q=person
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persuasive_definition
https://mind.ilstu.edu/curriculum/what_is_a_person/what_is_a_person.html
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Introduction_to_Philosophy/What_is_a_Person
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personhood
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savaging
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cannibal-mom-911-call-i-didnt-mean-to-do-it-he-told-me-to/
https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/people
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacies_of_definition
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_fallacy
https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/ethics
https://biblehub.com/matthew/7-12.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiii
CON's ROUND1 SOURCES:
https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/another
https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/person
https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/slave
https://www.debateart.com/debates/something%20that%20is%20owned%20by%20a%20person,%20business,%20etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/slavery
https://trulyexperiences.com/blog/veganism-statistics-usa/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_fallacy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_fallacy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbivore
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnivore
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestication
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_language
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proslavery#American_pro-slavery_movement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_husbandry
https://www.britannica.com/topic/tautology
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
I don't have permission to accept this debate
In other words, you intend to rely on petty bitching to win your debate.
You are using the wrong word. The word you mean to use is BONDAGE. BONDAGE is the "state of being owned by a person, being property" SLAVES are always humans by definition. For the same reason it would be the wrong usage to refer to your pet dog as your slave, it would be the wrong usage to refer to livestock as slaves.
If you'd like to have that debate, I am willing but I don't want to hear any petty bitching about "oh, that's not my topic, I'm talking about factory farming." I have no interest in debating the evils of factory farming with you but if the topic is your wrong vocabulary then I'm fine with that.