Well, it may not be a fair ratio of voter consideration to debater effort but the dynamic is easily explained. Forfeits require little attention but count as a vote just as much as a well-contested debate. Well contested debates require careful reading, consideration, and a well-reasoned decision. That's why major voters like Ramshutu are so essential to health and well-being of this site.
#################
This voter would have appreciated more groundwork by the instigator: I haven’t played either of these games and I don’t have a lot of context- a picture or highlight reel would have been nice. Con clearly invested the superior effort and I think a full Kritik is a perfectly acceptable approach to supersubjective who’s the hottest type debate. PRO offers breast size as the exclusive criteria for judging and CON does a good job of throwing a few objective reasons to reject that criteria. CON correctly points out PRO’s very limited engagement with arguments in R2. CON takes this debate.
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✗ ✗ ✔ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✗ ✔ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Better conduct ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
###########
PRO forfeits entirety. In the immortal words of Pink,"That's poor coduct!"
I really like all these short debates. I don't care that there's a lot of Germany because there's also a lot of history & geopolitics which I like to see.
Your format indicates that u will prove that sexual orientation is NOT determined @ birth. But your description answers the question affirmative. Why say at birth rather than genetically or at conception? How shall we interpret the orange peel reference?
I assume he did not double check the now five year old links. This also goes a long ways towards explaining why so many arguments seem to address the legality of child porn rather than the advantages of publishing an alleged FBI database. Even if Wylted did verify the existence of such a database 5 years ago (which is not evident), I assume based on broken links that he did not double check in present. Hopefully, that verification will be documented as part of PRO's R2.
Thx for the feedback but I try to limit talk about ongoing debates outside of the debate. (first rule of Fight Club) As instigator of a policy debate, its your job to sell us your plan and it's my job to poke holes. If you say you have a plan to go the Moon, I am going to want to see your spaceship. If you don't have a spaceship or forgot to check that's a hole in your plan I am going to poke. You are selling your plan for the FBI's child porn database, so yeah, I am going to ask if the damn thing is even real.
Going forward, I hope we can keep it all in the debate & we can talk shop after the voting is over. Thanks!
NTYAB, In that discussion I noted that 'retard,' french for slow, used to be the polite usage compared to more coarse usages: idiot, fool, ass, halfwit, nincompoop, dunce, dolt, ignoramus, cretin, imbecile, dullard, moron, simpleton, clod, etc. I don't think Daffy Duck ever called Elmer Fudd retard because that would have been too polite a word. Now we insist on super-syllabic anti-informational substitutes like "developmentally challenged" that only make the speaker feel better about themselves and offer little enough comfort to the afflicted. I'm gay & deaf myself and so fairly accustomed to adapting the most assaultive invective into amulets of protection. So, I'm okay with retard in most any context.
" I'm for the most part a free speech absolutist." ( It's hard to resist the punchline: "go fuck yourself" ) I also consider myself fairly radical regarding free speech although I often assert that empathy and civility are essential supports of that radicalism. I find the notion of swear words or inherently forbidden words in a secular forum astonishing.
good topic for debate. When debaters request "no foul language" in desc I always comply but fantasize about running the foulest kiritik I can imagine.
This is the fourth debate where I've been left wondering for how long my opponent is banned....I brought this uncertainty up last week regarding the need for ban log.
Not a great debate or anything but some people refrained from reading this then that have likely since caught up- I think the debate finished around the third or second to last episode.
What would be a good GoT subject now that the series is complete?
Thanks for voting. And thanks again to Trent. I really like that super short format and the straightforward, international politics topic. I look forward to more debates with you in future.
Let’s agree that all govt is prone to folly. I’m not sure I get the linkage between blue lives matter, which is (I suppose) a pro-police political stance & imperial decline. What’s your thesis- what do you plan to prove?
Dr.F explained he is expanding his horizons, I think an unrated debate is a good vehicle for that. His topic certainly carries a higher than recommended degree of difficulty, to which Ragnar's joke alluded
I like it. Are u merely proving that water once covered the whole earth or that a mass extinction event flood nearly ended mankind within the memory of man?
Sewing needle about 22 inches long
Small bar magnet or refrigerator magnet
One leather-bound gold-gilt fully-illustrated King James bible.
A shallow bowl
Pliers
WARNING: Needles are sharp! Use caution.
*To magnetize the needle: Rub a magnet along the needle a few times in one direction only
*Securely grip the needle with the pliers and with the bible on a flat surface, push the needle through one end of the bible and out the other so that the needle is sticking out of both ends of the bible evenly. (Be careful)
*Fill the bowl half-way with water and place the bible on the surface of the water
Place the whole “compass” on a flat surface and watch the bible as it sinks to the bottom of the shallow bowl. The needle should point towards the nearest magnetic pole depending on how closely God has been paying attention.
Now go test out your new compass and see if you can orient yourself on a map!
OFFENSE
Pregnancy confers many significant health risks for the mother.
PRO argues abortion also carries risk.
CON demonstrates unlike risks for pregnancy vs. abortion
PRO argues irresponsible women reap what they sow.
(PRO loses this voter right about here)
Con argues the inefficacy of abstention.
PRO loses this point.
Forced pregnancy is defacto slavery, devalues women’s lives.
PRO calls the analogy horrible and also argues irresponsible women reap what they sow. PRO argues that it is not slavery if women are being restrained from murder.
CON’s reply is convoluted but sound: forced pregnancies increase the number of women compelled to disastifying maternies by the government thereby increasing the number of post-partum murders, which both PRO and CON agree ought to be illegal and discouraged by state action.
CON futhers that PRO’s support of forced pregnancy in cases of rape, incest, etc counter PRO’s insistence that women are fully knowlegable and responsible from inseminsation, however violent/involuntary the insemination.
In R2, PRO adds an argument that the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause protects fetuses.
CON points out that the due process clause of the same sentence has repeatedly upheld Roe V. Wade and those decisions explicitly excluded the first two trimesters from 14th ammendment protection.
PRO really needed to lock down resolution and definitions. A policy debate needs to focus on best policy for people- moral applications usually fail in this realm. A moral argument vs abortion required a different framework. PRO made a fine, full faith effort but loses on points.
PRO offers no counterplan for resolution of the problem of unwanted pregnancy. Indeed, PRO does not seem to acknowledge unwanted pregnancies as the core problem to be resolved.
Perhaps because PRO’s case never really comes together, CON’s counterarguments strike this voter as too dismissive. I don’t mind CON acknowledging that he’s argued this topic before but links to prior debates are probably better left to comments or at the end of the debate to avoid any suggestion that prior debates require any refutation by opponent.
DEFENSE
Unborn children are living, and therefore
US policy does not suggest that life is inviolable
PRO will counter this defense as irrelevant
CON will clarify that unborn children ought not to prioritized before the born and that US immigration policy & also apparent Federal satisfaction with present mass shooting rates in education suggest that the lives of even the born are not particular priorities of govt and the same govt owes less due to the unborn.
Abortion is murder.
Non-sequitur, as above. Either abortion is legal and so not murder or abortion is illegal and PRO’s resolution made redundant.
PRO fails to understand non-sequitur
This voter finds PRO interdependent first & second arguments well disproved.
Abortion makes the value of life subjective.
Value itself is subjective. (pretty weak- value needs a definition here.)
That abortion can save a mother tens of thousands of dollars in medical expenses is one clear objective value.
PRO points out that there are adoption, etc programs that might offset these costs.
CON argues that many important costs such as lost work time, salary not calculated.
PRO and CON never really argued the same definition of value. DRAW on this point
PRO’s topic and description indicate a public policy debate but PRO’s R1 lack any kind of policy formatting. What government & what legal code are under discussion? In the absence of any defined resolution, I shall consider the resolution something like: RESOLVED: The USFG ought to criminalize abortion.
In the absence of any BOP this voter places the burden on PRO as instigator and advocate for policy change.
PRO offers 3 arguments:
Unborn children are living, and therefore
Abortion is murder.
Abortion makes the value of life subjective.
The first and second argument are really interdependent: if the child was not alive it could not serve as evidence of murder. Regrettably, PRO argues his only working argument out of contention:
PRO defines murder as an unlawful killing but we know that abortion has already been adjudged to be a lawful killing, if only because PRO wants to make it illegal.
P1: Murder is illegal
P2: Abortion is murder
C: Therefore, abortion should be illegal
But abortion is not unlawful in the US, therefore, using PRO’s definition, it cannot be murder. PRO’s first and second contentions are self-refuted before the end of R1.
PRO’s 3rd contention is barely comprehensible. The only ordinary, objective measure of life this voter is aware of is years lived but that yardstick starts at birth, ends at death, and is measured in birthdays. Pro entirely fails to offer even one objective value of a fetus, particularly an unwanted fetus which is our present subject. PRO shows no evidence to show that “people have begun to devalue human life.” By any and every historical account this voter knows of, the subjective value of human life and the subjective value of fetuses is presently enjoying an all-time high. PRO fails to show how feelings alter the objective value of life.
Well, it may not be a fair ratio of voter consideration to debater effort but the dynamic is easily explained. Forfeits require little attention but count as a vote just as much as a well-contested debate. Well contested debates require careful reading, consideration, and a well-reasoned decision. That's why major voters like Ramshutu are so essential to health and well-being of this site.
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Winner ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
#################
This voter would have appreciated more groundwork by the instigator: I haven’t played either of these games and I don’t have a lot of context- a picture or highlight reel would have been nice. Con clearly invested the superior effort and I think a full Kritik is a perfectly acceptable approach to supersubjective who’s the hottest type debate. PRO offers breast size as the exclusive criteria for judging and CON does a good job of throwing a few objective reasons to reject that criteria. CON correctly points out PRO’s very limited engagement with arguments in R2. CON takes this debate.
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✗ ✗ ✔ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✗ ✔ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Better conduct ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
###########
PRO forfeits entirety. In the immortal words of Pink,"That's poor coduct!"
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments ✗ ✗ ✔ 3 points
Better sources ✗ ✗ ✔ 2 points
Better spelling and grammar ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
Better conduct ✗ ✗ ✔ 1 point
##############
PRO concedes
Thanks for your time & effort, Ragnar. Much appreciated.
I really like all these short debates. I don't care that there's a lot of Germany because there's also a lot of history & geopolitics which I like to see.
Thanks, all 4 voting!
Your format indicates that u will prove that sexual orientation is NOT determined @ birth. But your description answers the question affirmative. Why say at birth rather than genetically or at conception? How shall we interpret the orange peel reference?
Thanks for voting!
The broken links are explained by Wylted's cut & pasted argument from a prior DDO debate (working a different resolution).
https://www.debate.org/debates/The-United-States-Federal-Government-should-legalize-child-porn-Wylted-vs-Bluesteel-and-Mikal/1/
I assume he did not double check the now five year old links. This also goes a long ways towards explaining why so many arguments seem to address the legality of child porn rather than the advantages of publishing an alleged FBI database. Even if Wylted did verify the existence of such a database 5 years ago (which is not evident), I assume based on broken links that he did not double check in present. Hopefully, that verification will be documented as part of PRO's R2.
Hey, Wylted-
Thx for the feedback but I try to limit talk about ongoing debates outside of the debate. (first rule of Fight Club) As instigator of a policy debate, its your job to sell us your plan and it's my job to poke holes. If you say you have a plan to go the Moon, I am going to want to see your spaceship. If you don't have a spaceship or forgot to check that's a hole in your plan I am going to poke. You are selling your plan for the FBI's child porn database, so yeah, I am going to ask if the damn thing is even real.
Going forward, I hope we can keep it all in the debate & we can talk shop after the voting is over. Thanks!
bumpin for gossip's sake
NTYAB, In that discussion I noted that 'retard,' french for slow, used to be the polite usage compared to more coarse usages: idiot, fool, ass, halfwit, nincompoop, dunce, dolt, ignoramus, cretin, imbecile, dullard, moron, simpleton, clod, etc. I don't think Daffy Duck ever called Elmer Fudd retard because that would have been too polite a word. Now we insist on super-syllabic anti-informational substitutes like "developmentally challenged" that only make the speaker feel better about themselves and offer little enough comfort to the afflicted. I'm gay & deaf myself and so fairly accustomed to adapting the most assaultive invective into amulets of protection. So, I'm okay with retard in most any context.
" I'm for the most part a free speech absolutist." ( It's hard to resist the punchline: "go fuck yourself" ) I also consider myself fairly radical regarding free speech although I often assert that empathy and civility are essential supports of that radicalism. I find the notion of swear words or inherently forbidden words in a secular forum astonishing.
good topic for debate. When debaters request "no foul language" in desc I always comply but fantasize about running the foulest kiritik I can imagine.
A subject that is apparently worthy of a remarkable amount of discussion.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/2069/the-word-tard
This is the fourth debate where I've been left wondering for how long my opponent is banned....I brought this uncertainty up last week regarding the need for ban log.
intel is fuzzy but I think its a ban, temp or perm based on some interaction w/ Club and/or ALT stuff.
naw, Somebody hasn't been on DART for months.
https://www.debateart.com/participants/Somebody/debates?type=finished
Good. Thx, Chris.
Not a great debate or anything but some people refrained from reading this then that have likely since caught up- I think the debate finished around the third or second to last episode.
What would be a good GoT subject now that the series is complete?
thx, Chris: I really like this short format. Do you have an opinion about abbreviations and/or links to citation?
Thanks for voting. And thanks again to Trent. I really like that super short format and the straightforward, international politics topic. I look forward to more debates with you in future.
That’s what the man said. 1000 words is tough. I wonder if Chris will allow heavy abbreviation and link in comments?
Thx, Chris
https://www.debateart.com/debates/736
bump
so you are endorsing forfeits and tautology in online debating generally, or just DDO specificallly?
"I really don't need to prove anything because its quite obvious. If someone thinks otherwise, then they can discuss it with me."
sounds like a winning resolution to me. good luck.
Is there a verb for this resolution? Still not clear if DDO is subject or accident
Let’s agree that all govt is prone to folly. I’m not sure I get the linkage between blue lives matter, which is (I suppose) a pro-police political stance & imperial decline. What’s your thesis- what do you plan to prove?
thx, Trent!
I appreciate you taking the time to vote. Thanks!
I think that’s fine. If it helps write the whole thing in docs and just link to it
Dr.F explained he is expanding his horizons, I think an unrated debate is a good vehicle for that. His topic certainly carries a higher than recommended degree of difficulty, to which Ragnar's joke alluded
Yes. Busy weekend & I had to force myself to get it done last night when I really wanted to sleep. I’ll try to get a head start on rebuts today
Is "Santa Claus is real and he is not a criminal" a kritik?
I can't do much about my intelligence at this point- I get stupider by the day, but I will endeavor to be civil
okey dokey
set up is fine with me but I'd want some assurance that we are restricting arguments to human history- say, less than glacial max, x < 24,000 yrs ago
If course, we are already using telescopes that can look into the past as the best way to learn about astronomy.
Well we never know til we try
I like it. Are u merely proving that water once covered the whole earth or that a mass extinction event flood nearly ended mankind within the memory of man?
I like best tasting. After humans, elephants are the best tasting animals
I'm there. I haven't done more than those couple of pages I wrote. I was kind of hoping somebody else would edit, add, and re-publish
Bibles make excellent compasses!
Materials
Sewing needle about 22 inches long
Small bar magnet or refrigerator magnet
One leather-bound gold-gilt fully-illustrated King James bible.
A shallow bowl
Pliers
WARNING: Needles are sharp! Use caution.
*To magnetize the needle: Rub a magnet along the needle a few times in one direction only
*Securely grip the needle with the pliers and with the bible on a flat surface, push the needle through one end of the bible and out the other so that the needle is sticking out of both ends of the bible evenly. (Be careful)
*Fill the bowl half-way with water and place the bible on the surface of the water
Place the whole “compass” on a flat surface and watch the bible as it sinks to the bottom of the shallow bowl. The needle should point towards the nearest magnetic pole depending on how closely God has been paying attention.
Now go test out your new compass and see if you can orient yourself on a map!
bad god vs. good god. bad god who turns Lot's wife into a salty statue vs. sermon on the mount good god.
So the nastiness of salt pillar people vs the do unto other
I like it. So, I can argue that the benefits of the Bible as literature, history, archeology, moral philosophy, etc outweigh the harms?
PART 3:
OFFENSE
Pregnancy confers many significant health risks for the mother.
PRO argues abortion also carries risk.
CON demonstrates unlike risks for pregnancy vs. abortion
PRO argues irresponsible women reap what they sow.
(PRO loses this voter right about here)
Con argues the inefficacy of abstention.
PRO loses this point.
Forced pregnancy is defacto slavery, devalues women’s lives.
PRO calls the analogy horrible and also argues irresponsible women reap what they sow. PRO argues that it is not slavery if women are being restrained from murder.
CON’s reply is convoluted but sound: forced pregnancies increase the number of women compelled to disastifying maternies by the government thereby increasing the number of post-partum murders, which both PRO and CON agree ought to be illegal and discouraged by state action.
CON futhers that PRO’s support of forced pregnancy in cases of rape, incest, etc counter PRO’s insistence that women are fully knowlegable and responsible from inseminsation, however violent/involuntary the insemination.
In R2, PRO adds an argument that the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause protects fetuses.
CON points out that the due process clause of the same sentence has repeatedly upheld Roe V. Wade and those decisions explicitly excluded the first two trimesters from 14th ammendment protection.
PRO really needed to lock down resolution and definitions. A policy debate needs to focus on best policy for people- moral applications usually fail in this realm. A moral argument vs abortion required a different framework. PRO made a fine, full faith effort but loses on points.
PART 2:
PRO offers no counterplan for resolution of the problem of unwanted pregnancy. Indeed, PRO does not seem to acknowledge unwanted pregnancies as the core problem to be resolved.
Perhaps because PRO’s case never really comes together, CON’s counterarguments strike this voter as too dismissive. I don’t mind CON acknowledging that he’s argued this topic before but links to prior debates are probably better left to comments or at the end of the debate to avoid any suggestion that prior debates require any refutation by opponent.
DEFENSE
Unborn children are living, and therefore
US policy does not suggest that life is inviolable
PRO will counter this defense as irrelevant
CON will clarify that unborn children ought not to prioritized before the born and that US immigration policy & also apparent Federal satisfaction with present mass shooting rates in education suggest that the lives of even the born are not particular priorities of govt and the same govt owes less due to the unborn.
Abortion is murder.
Non-sequitur, as above. Either abortion is legal and so not murder or abortion is illegal and PRO’s resolution made redundant.
PRO fails to understand non-sequitur
This voter finds PRO interdependent first & second arguments well disproved.
Abortion makes the value of life subjective.
Value itself is subjective. (pretty weak- value needs a definition here.)
That abortion can save a mother tens of thousands of dollars in medical expenses is one clear objective value.
PRO points out that there are adoption, etc programs that might offset these costs.
CON argues that many important costs such as lost work time, salary not calculated.
PRO and CON never really argued the same definition of value. DRAW on this point
PRO’s topic and description indicate a public policy debate but PRO’s R1 lack any kind of policy formatting. What government & what legal code are under discussion? In the absence of any defined resolution, I shall consider the resolution something like: RESOLVED: The USFG ought to criminalize abortion.
In the absence of any BOP this voter places the burden on PRO as instigator and advocate for policy change.
PRO offers 3 arguments:
Unborn children are living, and therefore
Abortion is murder.
Abortion makes the value of life subjective.
The first and second argument are really interdependent: if the child was not alive it could not serve as evidence of murder. Regrettably, PRO argues his only working argument out of contention:
PRO defines murder as an unlawful killing but we know that abortion has already been adjudged to be a lawful killing, if only because PRO wants to make it illegal.
P1: Murder is illegal
P2: Abortion is murder
C: Therefore, abortion should be illegal
But abortion is not unlawful in the US, therefore, using PRO’s definition, it cannot be murder. PRO’s first and second contentions are self-refuted before the end of R1.
PRO’s 3rd contention is barely comprehensible. The only ordinary, objective measure of life this voter is aware of is years lived but that yardstick starts at birth, ends at death, and is measured in birthdays. Pro entirely fails to offer even one objective value of a fetus, particularly an unwanted fetus which is our present subject. PRO shows no evidence to show that “people have begun to devalue human life.” By any and every historical account this voter knows of, the subjective value of human life and the subjective value of fetuses is presently enjoying an all-time high. PRO fails to show how feelings alter the objective value of life.