Total votes: 397
PRO badly misdefines COMMUNISM to suit his lecture's needs. The definition provided would earn any student an F in any Economics 101 class the world over. PRO's argument has nothing to do with economics and in spite of framing his argument as "SOCIETY should," PRO demonstrates no interest in public policy. PRO merely presents a commonplace universal utopian ideal as a theory of moral obligation without devoting a single brain cell to evidence or experience or pratical consideration. PRO fails to define SOCIETY but based on the globalism of his examples, his plan of moral obligation seems to apply to the whole world without any interest in implementatin, effect, or sustainability- such are the justifications of cartoon Bond villains. PRO should have also fulfilled his obligation to define EVOLVE. Evolution can just mean change but since Darwin that word carries a definite connotation of adaptation to a more sustainable configuration, PRO should have explained up front whether he felt universal sharing was likely to improve mankind's destiny or merely recommended a righteous seppeku by human ideal. Without any sepcifics, any history, any experiements, any knowledge of economic or even biological precedent we are left with a child's digest of the Sermon on the Mount, minus the eloquence or supernatural reassurance of success
The BURDEN of PROOF is 100% PRO's and PRO shrugs off this burden then runs aways from it like an injured wild hippo might from a clown with a saddle. PRO is not here to persuade, only to recycle past punditries with an acolyte's faith-based toolkit. This VOTER, for one, likes to see some evidence supporting a structured rational framework in an argument
PRO's best argument is a restatement of Christ's Golden Rule: do unto the sons of others as you would your own son. As a moral justification for Communism I suppose this works well enough but as a plan for real humans adapting to extreme overpopulation, technototalitarianism, and a burgeoning sixth extinction level event the rational priority is to make sure somebody's sons (and of necessity, daughters) survive
CON's job here is pretty easy since all he has to do is rebut PRO's assertions with evidence or demonstrate the lack thereof. I think CON succeeds in this rebuttal by roughly challenging point by point, although I give few points for style or accuracy and certainly, although I find myself disagreeing with CON more often than not. I don't think CON makes much of a case that ownership is not thef or communism produces scarcity but CON needs only make it clear that PRO's proselytizing stands unproven, he need not prove his counterclaims and mostly I wish he had not tried. CON does show that PRO's definition of Communism is fake news and that the geo-political history of what has been called Communism produces the opposite of the Christian effects PRO hopes for less freedom, less equality, less prosperity, stagnant, short-lived slave state
In round 2, PRO outright states that there are contradicting notions of properties, and all contradiction being irresolvable, the anarchist's war cry "property is theft" must be true. PRO lists North Korea, China, Japan, Canada, Finland, Sweden, and the US as examples of emerging classless, propertyless Communists societies although some of these examples offer polar extremes in onlook about social equity and ownership. The more examples PRO gives the fuzzier his conception of Communism seems to be, merging finally into a doubleplusgood singularity. If a nation does something PRO aprroves of, then he will call it Communism
PRO seems to know he's beaten and switches tactics- he insists we accept his false definition of communism as valid and failing that, attack Captialism irrelvantly- as if the way to make
Communism plausible is to criticize Captialism. That's a very 20th Century American way of thinking about socio-economics- two polarized forces locked in a zero sum death match. It was bullshit propaganda in the age of Krushchev and Reagan and it remains bullshit propoganda today
CON wins in round 3 by demanding an Economicly correct definiton of Communism and by pointing out that PRO's argument is actually irrelevant to Communism or any socio-econoic theory. CON wisely demands to see PRO's evidence, research, proofs
PRO knows when he is beat and runs away from CON's demand for facts as fast as possible, only leaving the minimum necessary to avoid technical while nevertheless forfeiting the last 40% of the debate, ignoring CON's demands for substance and depriving CON of any opportunity to refine.
ARGs to CON
SOURCES to CON for using some. When CON demanded that PRO show his research, PRO scampered
CONDUCT to CON. Although PRO did not technically forfeit the second half of the debate, by any normal standard PRO's refusal to engage is just as chicken as not showing up at all
con concedes
full forfeit
PRO forfeited 40% of debate.
2/3rds arguments forfeited = full forfeit
arguments in comments
Why would a debater work to give a new user voting privileges without experiencing a couple of real debates?
Con forfeited first 60% of debate. PRO gets the full forfeit.
2/3rds forfeit= full forfeit
full forfeit
Full forfeit. Welcome to the site, Mast3rDebater!
PRO starts out with a very weak effort:
Refuses to define his central term (because most standard dictionaries disprove PRO's claim outright).
Primary argument is childishly oversimple.
AP1: Gender is a social construct
AP2: All social constructs are based on something real
AC1: Gender must be based on something real
BP1: Gender is only based on sex
BP2: Sex is binary
CP2: Therefore, gender is binary
I think CON could have won this debate by using any widely accepted definition of GENDER and demonstrating PRO's lack of understanding of that term. CON undermines their own argument by buying into the controversy and accepting the majority burden of proof. Still, CON devastates PRO's argument by citing NPR's usage guide asserting three sexes and at least three genders and explaining that social constructs vary by society and time. PRO's AP2, BP1, and BP2 are all authoritatively falsified here. CON wastes time definiting EXISTENCE- notoriously difficult to define and there's much simpler ways of disproving that social constructs are always based on something real: Monarchies are social constructs asserting that some humans are chosen by the gods to rule. America is founded on the notion that not all social constructs are real. CON then gives 8 examples of current social constructs recognized by some societies (I would have like to have seen heavy citation here: really demonstrate that these constructs have currency in modern psychological, medical, scientific thinking. CON rebuttals are rather muddled. CON really needed to defend the current state of the social construct in modern science. Statements like "as long as someone claims it, it exists" undermines the shared understanding of social construct and does not help the case.
In R2, PRO accepts CON's definition of gender as " The individual is themselves choose their gender identity." Poor grammar aside, PRO's acceptance of GENDER as rooted in self-indentity necessarily sets the reality of sex in favor of perception, even unprovable self-perceptions. PRO really kills his argument in R2 by providing a list of social constructs, all of which he claims have an objective reality but many of which are generally accepted as NOT based on any objective reality: beauty, intelligence, race, etc. PRO demands a description of all the genders CON has listed and CON wins this debate by providing mainstream, objective definitions to which PRO barely responds and offers absolute zero expert thinking in contradiction.
R3 continues essentially the same- PRO asserts his own biased reality as truth without presenting scientific evidence, CON is more in touch with mainstream thinking but is too ethereal: a few concise statements establishing that social constructs need not be based in reality would have effectively killed PRO's case in a few short statements.
ARGUMENT to CON.
SOURCES easily to go CON for using objective sources to define a number of terms, particularly defining genders. PRO really needed to come back with sources just as objective that refuted CON's authorities confirming many shades of gender. Instead, PRO offers mere opinion, without any acknowledgement or rebuttal to society's current, popular usage the notion of gender.
Legibility could stand improvement on both sides, conduct ok.
dishonest, open cheating. PRO should feel ashamed.
FUll forfeit + concession
full forfeit
full forfeit
PRO wastes more than half of his opening argument by incompletely revisiting the definition of JUSTIFIED and summarizing the history of the Revolution. As CON will point out, the definition of JUSTIFIED was provided as part of the tournament. If you are going repeat that term, do so in the DEBATE DESCRIPTION and failing that, make sure your definition matches the definition agreed to as part of the tournament. PRO's partial definition seems like parsing a condition that was previously agreed.
PRO tries to tilt the burdens a little by suggesting he need only prove that the US had a reasonable cause, while CON must prove not JUSTIFIED. In fact, both have a burden to prove JUSTIFIED/not JUSTIFIED and a reasonable cause strikes this voter as a slightly lower standard. CON correctly holds PRO to a better than status quo standard.
Nevertheless, PRO does give us two justifications:
British dictatorship.
raising taxes on almost everything
PRO also adds some ends to justifiy the means:
American wealth and power
Americans stopped slavery and segregation
Became a home for many immigrants
CON lists the justifications for the American Revolution as twofold:
Taxes
Boston Massacre
This voter find both arguments superficial and non-comprehensive. CON correctly sets aside PRO's post hoc arguments as legitimate justifications. PRO correctly faults CON's understanding of the weight of taxes and the Boston Massacre relative to public mood. While I don't buy even one of CON's many claims of dropped arguments, I have to side with CON's understanding of JUSTIFICATION. JUSTIFICATION happens in the moment of action, not after the results can be appreciated. A police shooting that follows the correct rules of engagement is justified, even if the result is the death of an innocent person. A police shooting done out of fear or haste is unjust even if lives were saved. The ends never justifies the means.
Ultimately, it is CON's superior understanding of JUSTIFICATION that wins him this debate.
As an American, I am sad to see the original great geopoltical expression of the Age of Enlightment reduced to a few practical considerations. Jefferson wrote one of the most famous and beautiful doctrines in World History to give voice to Colonists' reasons, of which taxes ranks only 13th out of 26 causes and for which tyranny is generally applicable to all. CON correctly faults American hypocrisy when Jefferson declares "all men were created equal," but nobody can take from Americans the foundation of a great nation on that great and radical principle and certainly nobody can say that Americans have not struggled with the meaning of that profundity daily and ever since.
Both sides were pretty weak on sources in an subject where the scholarship could not be more plentiful. Still, I am giving sources to CON because of some significant counterfactual errors made by PRO. PRO gets George III's name wrong. PRO falsely claims that the US was a leader in abolition and de-segregaton when in fact the US famously fought a civil war over the issue decades after most of Europe had adopted Napoleonic views of human rights. Racism is one of the most core chracteristics of Americanism and while there are certainly different kinds of racism I don't think there was ever a time when the US could be said to rank amoung the least racist countries in the world.
Pls. find reason in comments.
Full forfeiture. Particularly enjoyed CON outline style of arg
full forfeiture
mutual forfeitures but conduct to PRO for posting and stating that he was waiting for arg.
full forfeit
RFD in COMMENTS
Full forfeit by CON
Con's reasoning was far more compelling-
Flippers can't type, disproved claim of owning Beatles song= compelling
self/selfie argument not as convincing.
Args to CON
full forfeit
full forfeit
CON full forfeited which is a shame because Wakanda Forever sucks on pretty much every level- totally unwatchable.
full forfeit
Both sides created on Feb 9th. Instigator starts a debate called ham and the contender creates an account called Iamham to accept the debate. This is clearly one user testing the sites defenses against cheating and clearly discovering there is not much defense here against multi-accounters and other cheaters.
forfeiture
Full forfeit
Full forfeit
also, Soviet Union is a "was" not a "is"
full forfeiture