Total votes: 397
Last two rounds imply concession
ARGs to PRO for forfeits/concession.
Whether one believes the Bible or not, the Bible is one of the core works of literary infrastructure in Western language and culture. I would not trust any claim to academic or intellectual sufficiency that does not include a solid mastery of the Bible, Homer, and Shakespeare. If you want to be perceived as an authoritative thinker in English, mastery of the Bible or at least a convincing façade of that mastery is essential.
CONDUCT to CON for concession/forfeit
There is an evidence for the existence of god
PRO starts off with a big claim to make but doesn't really step up to the plate at all.
PRO's argument is difficult to parse but seems to run something like:
P1: The existence of laws proves the existence of at least one lawmaker
P2: Physical laws of the Universe exist
C: Therefore a lawmaker is proven
CON's helpful R3 summary counters:
1) PRO gave wrong definition of evidence.
But CON did not DEFINE that term in the debate's description, so PRO enjoys some laxity here
2) PRO confused science and philosophy (metaphysics and ontology.)
In the question of proving/disproving God, these are easily confused.
3) PRO's argument is non-sequitor (so far, he still has 1 round to go in which he may elaborate).
Lawmaker does not imply omnipotence. Perhaps although if its proven that an individual created the physical laws of the universe certainly great potency is implied.
4) PRO arbitrarily re-names the terms, which I called semantics.
That's not what semantics means.
In R4, CON argues that he took PRO's definition of GOD and showed how it meshed with reality (as lawmaker). True, but strictly hypothetical. No evidence has been presented to establish PRO's hypothesis.
CON counters;
1) He states that I said science has nothing to do with the laws: plainly false. What I said was study of them is metaphysics, not science.
This VOTER agrees.
2) PRO states that causality is empirical - it is plainly false. What is empirical is the constant conjunction of what we call cause and what we call the effect.
Isn't the constant conjunction of cause and effect the definition of causality?
3) Even if granted everything, PRO's arguments do not serve the definition of god of the debate: CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE. PRo states that causes are the creator but they are part of the universe, not creator of the universe.
Disagree. PRO argued that causes imply a causer, not that causes are the causer.
4) PRO self-contradicts: PRO states cause is all-knowing and accepts me as cause of the text but I presume he does not reckon me all-knowing
agreed.
two contradicting claims of all-knowingness demand at least on claim is false. Hypothetically, any all-knower would know how to prove his point better.
5)PRO's attempt at omni-benevolence fails.
Certainly, parsing this debate argues against benevolence
BOTH parties fail to make much of convincing argument. CON as instigator should have BoP here but the claim that God exists is sufficiently extraordinary to shift the whole BoP to PRO. Since neither proved much and neither successfully pushed Burden on opponent, this VOTER calls arguments a DRAW.
SOURCES to CON for using a few of general relevance. PRO relied on no sources to back his gigantic claim regretably.
PRO makes a gigantic claim without defining terms or setting burdens.
PRO's entire thesis begins with big leaps in logic, stating that if he can prove that his book has no contradictions while his opponent's book has contradiction his religion must be proved true but never explains the connection between these books and religious veracity. Lack of contradiction does not imply truth or vice versa. "Mary had a Little Lamb" has no contradictions while Thucydides has plenty but nobody would argue that Mary is therefore fact and the Peloponnesian War fiction. PRO never connects his argument to thesis.
This VOTER agree with CON that all plagiarized cut & pastes can be disregarded as any kind of argument.
That leaves PRO arguing that the Trinity is confusing but again, PRO never gets around to explaining why confusing information can't possibly be true.
CON's syllogism game needs some work but he nevertheless effectively bats down PRO's single argument as unconnected to thesis.
PRO's argument never takes his burden to prove Islam more true seriously. Even if we accept these arguments about Biblical contradiction vs. Qur'anic non-contradiction, we're still left with two super old pre-scientific testaments that claim all kinds of magic powers entirely inconsistent with physics and the observable universe.
CON correctly calls out PRO for claiming truths without establishing any facts.
ARGs to CON
SOURCES to CON for PRO's cut & paste plagiarism in place of argument
CONDUCT to CON for same.
Fool for fapping
Foo Fighters
Fluffy four feet
I am treating this as a concession by CON in R2 because that is my interpretation of these remarks
"I'm just going to copy and paste what i said in the comments and why i forfeit. Your title is extremely misleading. Your title is in direct contradiction to what you really want to argue about in the description. The average disparities in crime between black and white people are the result of systemically racist laws in the past. Policing and racial disparities within the police are due to the lingering effects of said laws. If you truly only wanted to talk about why police disparities exist and not talk about other factors outside of the police, it seems like you were just looking for a gotcha debate."
and general (although confusingly not entire) disengagement thereafter. Conduct to CON for concession.
Both sides full forfeited but CON gave one sentence of argument that demonstrated a profoundly inferior argument-
Arguing in the affirmative when he assigned himself the negative position.
Fallaciously appealing to the law.
Misrepresenting the contemporary extent and nature of that law.
PRO wins by remaining silent in the face of a convincingly self-destructive argument.
full forfeit
TROPHY HUNTING should not be BANNED
CON's argument is fairly insubstantial for start to end. Why negate a negative proposition rather than assert the affirmative. Should not not be banned is a more complicated question than merely stating Trophy hunting should be banned.
CON gives us no definitions or terms. In the absence of any BoP claims, the burden is squarely on CON here and he's allowed precious few characters to fulfill that burden.
CON's sole argument is that removing trophy's from the natural cycle of life and death, hunters deprive the environment of fertilizer. CON offers no discussion of the extent of impact or discernable consequences of this decrease in fertilizer. Are there plant or animals species that are failing due to the impact of trophy hunting?
PRO goes straight to impact by comparing that impact to the impacts of agriculture or tourism and backs the claim with legit and sufficient sources.
CON's really needed a more compelling affirmative and also needed to show at least that hunting, farming, and tourism are not the only options but CON forfeited, dropping all arguments and losing this debate.
ARGS to PRO
SOURCES to PRO since CON used none and PRO used sources effectively
CONDUCT to PRO for CON's forfeiture
half forfeit beats full forfeit
Full forfeit- CON's full effort here sets a good example
3/5 arguments forfeited
The USER who VOTES FIRST on this DEBATE will most LIKELY VOTE CON
PRO offers to predict the future based on DART stats and then lazily offers zero proof.
PRO's argument is difficult to parse but runs something like:
P1:High ranking [debaters] are more likely to be CON.
C: Therefore, the first vote for this debate will favor CON.
P1: The first vote on any debate is more often CON than PRO
C: Therefore, the first vote on this debate will favor CON.
Both arguments are missing a major premise.
PRO's main argument was so poorly constructed that this VOTER actually mistook this gobbledygook "Not only do all the high rankers have an opposite tendency to all low rankers but there is even more consistency in voting for Con side when and if a skilled debater is on side Con than the inverse." to mean "high rankers are more likely to vote CON" rather than PRO's intended "high rankers are more likely to be CON."
For the first argument to work, PRO must first show that high rankers are also very likely to vote first and even then we have multiple layers of likelihoods. Furthermore, PRO must show that these likelihoods are generally disconnected from quality of argument. Since the majority of debates on this site are poorly constructed to begin with, CON is naturally favored. Furthermore, In this VOTER's experience, CON enjoys significant advantages in terms of BURDEN of PROOF, last arguments, and above all, choosing one's opponent. Long before we consider who votes and how, CON is likely heavily favored.
For the second argument to work, PRO must again show that the first VOTE is disconnected from quality of argument. Since CON is favored before arguments are made, the majority of first votes should be CON but since PRO is making a very lazy argument, PRO must also show that these odds ignore even the laziest of arguments.
Oddly, CON also fail to consider how format and quality favor voting for CON generally but not PRO's argument specifically. CON weighs the probabilities as if each possible outcome are just as likely when in fact fewer VOTES rate sources, grammar, conduct and the outcome of all of these depend heavily on performance.
CON unconvincingly argues PRO's ratings will overcome any deficits in performance but then CON goes ahead by noting that PRO contemptuously offered zero proof to his argument and correctly claims advantage because his argument has evidence, in spite of this evidence contradicting the ability suggested by the leaderboard.
PRO effectively eviscerates CON "all possibilities being equal argument"
PRO correctly counters that the leaderboard favors quantity over quality.
CON effectively argues that PRO is deliberately throwing the debate, hoping to win by losing and I suppose such a tactic is clever but CON correctly points out that PRO makes a mistake by predicting a future for which the outcome is out of PRO's control. To win this debate, CON needed to convince the first VOTER to give the advantage to CON but make up those losses in subsequent VOTES and CON has achieved that result.
In the absence of any contention either way, the BURDEN of PROOF that CON would win this debate was on PRO. PRO failed to provide any evidence for two weak affirmative arguments both of which were missing major premises. Such a tactic may have proved sufficient to win the first VOTE but then that outcome itself contradicts PRO's unwise prediction.
In spite of some effective counterarguments, PRO loses this ARGUMENT.
CONDUCT also to CON for PRO's forfeiture and lazy R1.
I was tempted to give CON SPELLING and GRAMMAR based on the world salad of PRO's first argument and said as much in the comments of this debate but in truth, PRO's R2 was superior to his usual poor legibility and the requisite standard of "Overwhelming word confusion" is not entirely justified, just word confusion over one essential structural element.
ISLAM is the TRUE RELIGION
PRO makes a massive claim about the nature of the universe without defining terms.
PRO asserts that some other philosophy (atheism) is flawed without connecting that assertion to thesis. Disproof of some philosophy doesn't prove another philosophy more true unless we establish that only one of the two must be true.
PRO argues without evidence that (1) the Quran is perfectly preserved, old, and popular but it does not follow that old and popular books are particularly true. The Iliad is very old and very popular but not necessarily true in every detail.
PRO then argues without evidence that Islam is the true religion because Islam is the only true religion.
CON correctly denies that PRO has met BoP.
CON wastes time engaging on the Atheism non-sequitur. This VOTER agrees that any philosophy can be dismissed as mere logic and intellect without getting any closer to any truth.
CON counters Quran preservation by lazily linking to two biased (Christian) sources
In R2 PRO spends much time on disproving Atheism and Christianity and devotes only 3 short sentences to his thesis- all of which just amount to PRO saying that Islam is true some more.
CON gains ground by restating thesis and parsing arguments. I appreciate CON's second syllogism
No A have B
some C has B
Therefore no C is A
CON does (minimally) establish the major premise in R3 but PRO argues CON's one example is out of context. I'm sure PRO is right but CON correctly notes that PRO also fails to give us context, quote more illuminative passages or better yet, give us some really objective textual scholarship proving that CON has the context wrong.
But none of that comes and we are left with PRO making many, many assertions without much evidence. This VOTER considers all of the atheism and Christianity stuff irrelevant to thesis. PRO promised to prove that Islam is the true religion but his entire argument fails because we must first presume the Quran is true but this voter, for one, has not read the Quran and without some kind of really compelling argument that some old book has all the answers, however perfectly preserved, this VOTER defaults to skepticism.
CON's syllogism demonstrates that CON understood PRO's burden better than PRO did and could have won this debate by a wide margin if CON had only (1) Given multiple reasons for doubting the Quran's perfect veracity, rather than just self-contradiction and a few scholarly (secular) examples of each. CON harms his argument by using obviously biased sources and honestly I didn't trust a Southern Baptist website to fairly analyze the Quran for me. These are obviously competing philosophies with all kinds of motivations to distort the others claims.
As it is, CON just gives us one short example and I have no reason to particularly believe or particularly doubt PRO's out-of-context complaint, so I can't really say CON outright won the one argument thread really relevant to thesis. CON was smart to start with BURDENs of PROOF and get PRO on record as seemingly not caring about his obligations to thesis. CON wins by laying out one valid argument and backing it with one proof that was not convincingly refuted.
Since plagiarism cannot be counted as an original argument this is essentially full forfeit.
Full forfeit
RFD in COMMENTS
a fig for the full force falafel of facsimilar forfeitures
Concession.
As initiator and maker of extraordinary claims, PRO has the BURDEN of PROOF here.
PRO offers us three fairly different standards to apply:
1) Atheism is simply "a lack of belief"
2) The definition of atheism should be accepted as merely "a lack of belief in a god"
3) [A lack of belief] should be considered the most reasonable to accept and utilize.
PRO clearly states that #2 is the Full Resolution and so #2 will be used to establish PRO's burden. That is, this VOTER won't apply the much lower standard of "lack of belief is one simple definition for atheism" or the much lower standard of "most reasonable." #2 does appear to be PRO's intent. PRO must prove that atheism has only one acceptable definition. Given that PRO is contradicting the body of Western scholarship regarding this definition, PRO has set himself a nearly impossible task. PRO defines all kinds of terms except for the one relevant term, ATHEISM.
PRO argues that dictionaries should do away with the most strict , precise definition of atheism and only use the more broad definition mostly overlapping with agnosticism.
Logical Incoherence
PRO argues that strict atheism is incoherent because there are too many concepts of god to actively disbelieve them all. Where the rule that prohibits categorical denial came from, PRO does not say. To me, merely refusing to accept any supernatural explanation is sufficient denial of the possibility of all gods, by definition. To say, "strictly atheist until proof of GOD" seems perfectly rational and strictly atheist without need to consult each and every god conception.
Nevertheless, PRO fails to explain why a logically incoherent concept does not merit its own word. Just because the fear of spiders is irrational doesn't imply that the word arachnophobia ought not to be defined.
Practical Uselessness
PRO uses weak analogy to argue that because agnosticism and atheism are alike performatively in terms of non-worship, they must also be identical in terms of theory. That is, there is no practical distinction between the roommate who does not go to church because he does not believe there could ever be a god and the roommate who does not go to church because he does not pretend to know whether god is real. A scientist is the same thing as a skeptic, in essence.
PRO does explain what word we would use to replace atheism if strict atheism were re-defined to only mean the same thing as agnosticism.
CON fails to address either idea directly but does a fine job of establishing the strict usage of atheism is a popular and commonplace understanding and correctly challenges PRO authority to presume redefinition without even basic reliance on precedence in literature or religious thought. CON's reliance on sources here ultimately makes CON's affirmative the strongest, even as CON neglected his duties to negate PRO. CON's strongest argument is that absence of belief is more agnostic than atheistic. CON also argues that ATHEISM in its strictest sense is correct usage.
PRO never really argued against the utility of using the broad, duplicative definition of atheism although PRO clearly expected as much.
In R2-
1) Etymology of Atheism- PRO invents an entirely fictional etymology for the word atheism without reliance on even one work of reference.
2) PRO drops the evidence for the ordinary usage of atheism in the strictest sense saying its cherry picked.
3) PRO drops the evidence for the commonplace definition by saying its cherry picked and then tries to refute by using a MW definition of atheist, not ATHEISM and that MW definition relies on a definition of ATHEISM that falsifies PRO's thesis
"a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods"
4 & 5 PRO's strongest counters are that worldview and propositional position are not necessary to the categorization of ATHEISM.
6) PRO rejects CON's sources without explanation
7) PRO asserts his authority is based in reason but PRO has given no rational argument against the regular usage of an ordinary word, on a rational argument against strict atheism ideologically.
(cont in COMMENTS)
Interesting topic but full forfeit
CON opens the debate without any term defined or thesis expressed. CON doesn't even bother to clarify what side of the issue he's on.
PRO offers no thesis or arguments in support of his position. PRO's R1 is basically just a cut and paste from the article he (sort of) cites:
https://www.thetrace.org/2016/09/harvard-gun-ownership-study-self-defense/
CON replies with maximal cynicism- senseless violence should and must continue because background checks don't make a difference.
PRO correctly points out that CON dropped most of PRO's argument. PRO argues that all guns must be banned for World Peace but admits that argument is unrealistic.
CON correctly points out that PRO dropped all of PRO's argument.
PRO agrees and re-iterates some points about the perils of suicide and NRA political suppression.
Ultimately, this was a public policy debate where neither side offered any serious course of action There's a lot of steps to consider between "Ban all Guns" and "achieve world peace" PRO used some sources hit some point but never really discusses what government should enact what policies in what contexts. CON never really got around to telling us his position on gun control but we might infer from his opposition on background checks.
This VOTER finds that neither argument was sufficient or coherent enough to award victory.
NO SUCH THING as GENERAL FINANCIAL FREEDOM
PRO makes a big bold statement without bothering to define terms or really explain his thesis. What does PRO mean when he says GENERAL FINANCIAL FREEDOM?
BoP is on PRO. As far as I can tell, PRO means money generally. But there is such a thing as freedom from money- children, Bushmen of the Kalahari, prisoners, slaves, a few other off-the-grid self sustainers. Generally, history and I agree that money is a positive innovation, allowing for a practical medium of exchange, a standard by which to value labor, a method for deferring transfers of wealth and means of storing value. Yes, there would be some freeing aspects to a return to barter but all humanity would be far less wealthy and efficient for it. PRO could argue that there's no such thing as freedom from electricity for most of humanity and that's true but I dare so most humans prefer it that way. Certainly, PRO's case fails to persuade me to feel concern for a life well improved.
CON defines FINANCIAL FREEDOM first and so wins the debate.
PRO essentially concedes in R3. CON says ",to have financial freedom is to have paid them off and have money to spare" and PRO agrees several times and unconditionally, affirming that there is such a thing as financial freedom according to CON's definition and that freedom is achievable for some, at least. Hard to discern PRO's intent in this debate.
Certainly, PRO failed to show there is no such thing as financial freedom.
IF NECESSARY to MAINTAIN its INDEPENDENCE from an INVADING CHINA, the UNITED STATES OUGHT to MOUNT a CONVENTIONAL MILITARY DEFENSE of TAIWAN
PRO opens with a fair summary of the liberal consensus underpinning US foreign policy since WW2: increased global prosperity by maintaining global free trade, increased global liberty by supporting democratic governments worldwide. The potential consequence of non-intervention are described as a loss of economic relevance and international standing. Solid presentation.
CON self-destructs on arrival by a) failing to engage PRO's argument, b) choosing to respond in verse, c) choosing to represent China's POV and d) demonstrating little understanding of the present geopolitical order or the US/Chinese relationship within that order.
Let's recall that this is a public policy debate addressing US foreign policy. That is, both PRO and CON are looking to influence American decision-making rather than Chinese. CON gives no thought to the advantages of the present world order, particularly to Americans at the top of that order. CON gives no credit to peace, prosperity, or individual liberty but only proceeds to entitle China generically across global policy by pointing out US failures. The argument seems to be that so long as America is shown to be less than perfect in any geopolitical theater, China may not be criticized. The impacts to life, liberty, and prosperity, American, Chinese, Taiwanese, and globally are essentially ignored. CON pretends to represent China's point of view but never gets around to stating China's most basic position regarding Taiwan- that Taiwan is a rebellious but fundamentally Chinese state overdue for incorporation. Why would any USFG official be persuaded by a laundry list of irrelevant and mostly past grievances? I'm a big fan of style in DART debate, but the necessities of persuasion must dictate the form. By definition, the use of verse obscures the clarity of prose- prioritizing deliberate ambiguities and musicality over semantic precision. US military, intelligence, state dept officials demand semantic precision and would dismiss any policy proposal delivered in verse out of hand.
In the second round, PRO effectively calls out CON's whataboutism, arguing that the US need not be blameless in order to maintain the most effective, sustainable solution. CON correctly loses confidence in his verse but fails to improve his argument. Still not arguing to any US interest, CON deceptively minimizes impact- China is inactive, little harm to Taiwan and restates the hypocrisy argument.
PRO effectively counters CONs assertion of Chinese policy as non-threatening by recalling the Cold War, Korea, Vietnam and most recently Hong Kong's loss of civil and economic freedom, to the deficit of all. I agree with PRO that CON failed to undermine PRO's original case in any substantial way.
CON seems to agree by switching back to poetry and barely mentioning Taiwan in the final round- mostly just a string of unjustified Chinese threats without any consideration for American interests, and therefore without any consideration for American decision-making on the global stage.
Ultimately, PRO gave several good reasons for the US to defend Taiwan which CON did not engage. CON tried to represent the Chinese perspective rather than address any US interest in non-engagement.
Arguments to PRO
full forfeit
Rule #1: forfeit merits loss
full forfeiture
concession
David is by far the best debater with an under 500 record because of all these forfeitures. I really appreciate RM's commitment to press forward with excellent arguments in the first round and award RM the awful fried falafel of full 7 forfeiture.
On to round 2!
Fauxlaw violated terms of the debate.
Fauxlaw violated DART CODE of CONDUCT: If a member requests that you leave them alone, do so.
Full forfeit
CON forfeited all arguments after initial arg.- meriting full forfeit without consideration of arg.
Really terrible argument from PRO here. PRO fails to restrict a public policy debate to any entity, essentially arguing that every entity public and private should follow the same policy. PRO is making a huge claim here, tossing out incredibly successful and popular prophylaxis. The buden of proof is PRO's here in spite of claiming shared burden.
1. Non-seq: Requiring proof of vax is not the same thing as madatory vax. If vax were mandatory, no proof of vax would be req'd.
2. Proof of vax violates 1st ammendment
CON successfully argues that 1A only applies to one nation and no private entities.
3 &4. Pure speculation CON ignores.
PRO proposed a radical shift in global norms (heck, even dog-sitters require proof of shots) based on the skimpiest of free expression arguments. Obviously, the act of asking for proof implies that the vax is voluntary and so not a violation of free expression. Govts and businesses have the responsibility to adhere to normal hygiene standards including requiring vaccinations as a prerequisite for many public interactions. PRO fails to make a convincing argument.
Full forfeit
Pls find reasons in COMMENTS section
THESIS: Proof of COVID vaccination should never be required for any purpose by either the government or any private entity.
The subject of this debate is public policy, whether govt and private entities can require proof of vaccine compliance. The subject is not, or at least according to the debate description ought not to be, whether the COVID vaccine is safe or effective.
Only PRO#2 is really on point but pretty weak. PRO argues First Amendment: privacy, freedom of religion/expression although many states and no private entities guarantee such rights. PRO dismisses the responsibilities of public and private entities to protect those who can't be vaccinated, children under 12 at present, for example
PRO#1 is non-sequitur to thesis. Whether or not a public or private entity mandates a vaccine is entirely separate from the question of whether a public or private entity has the authority to require proof of vaccination circumstantially. Most democracies don't mandate most vaccines but nevertheless require proof of vaccination as a prerequisite to a whole host of venues- MMR before elementary school admission, for example . Private companies can't be compelled by the state to absorb more risk on behalf of those who do not wish to be vaccinated. In non-democracies, individual rights never supersede the state.
PRO#3 and #4 are speculations defenses of PRO#1- the vaccines could have unforeseen harms, the disease itself could have unforeseen benefits. The potentially unforeseen does serve as evidence of anything and all of PRO's sources are absolute trash.
CON should be able to make quick work of PRO's argument but dithers instead.
CON#1 claims BoP is PRO's but CON accepted the debate set at "Burdens are equal" and his argument is not good- unreasonably conflaing the subject "Proof of vaccination" with "Proof of thesis"
CON#2 uses some off-point definitions of vaccine and spurious interpretation to argue PRO cannot predict the future (fine) and a harmful vaccine is no vaccine at all (sematic goo).
CON#3 argues COVID vaccines are effective which PRO never denied but gives a very effective example of a private entity (hospitals) that have a real duty to separate the vaccinated from the unvaccinated and justifiably demand proof in pursuit of that obligation.
CON sources are better than the mere opinions presented by PRO but really only repeat the line that vaccines are effective without much hard science.
CON dropped PRO's only decent argument (self-determination)
R2, PRO demonstrates his understanding of thesis to counter CON#1 effectively but fails to explain why 3 of his arguments don't address Proof of vaccination.
PRO argues that CON#3 only argues against re-infection and goes on about the rarity of such cases but CON's example seems to be arguing against infection generally, a primary duty of a doctor in a hospital.
PRO correctly notes that CON dropped PRO's only relevant ARG.
CON strangely comes back with a new example, valid but rare- that Vaccine producers who want to survey the vaccinated for effectiveness must require proof of vaccination to ensure valid data. Valid data ensures improved vaccine quality to the benefit of all. Best argument of the debate and refutes PRO#2 - there is at least one circumstance where a private entity has a duty to require proof of vaccination beyond any concern for individual autonomy.
CON rebuts autonomy arguing that the right to life supersedes more minor or speculative concerns, which this VOTER finds convincing.
CON goes down PRO's garden path with "re-infection." CON argues a bit roundaboutly that vaccines saves lives which I wish he had connected closely to both public and private duty but it's a valid enough point.
PRO's rebuttal argues that CON R1 contradicts CON's R2 - vaccines work vs we don't know if vaccines work but CON never argued that we don't know if vaccines work.
PRO entirely misses the point of CON's hypothetical vaccine manufacturer surve
This VOTER agrees with PRO that CON left PRO#3 and PRO#4 unargued for the most part but neither argument forwarded PRO's case. PRO should have done a better job of dismissing both as irrelevent.
CON clarifies his CON#2 a bit but this VOTER sets it all aside as semantics.
Ultimately PRO never demonstrated that individual autonomy must always supersede public and private entities' obligations to charges. Both PRO and CON offered a lot tangents and poorly substantiated claims but CON did give some convincing examples of circumstances (hospital, vaccine testing) where the need establish immunity supersedes any individual autonomy. Arguments to CON.
I really hated PRO's sources but CON never challenged their validity and his own sources were overly general so I set aside any consideration of sources.
R1
PRO argues that Tahini did not merit Bad Place assignment because
*she had a cruel if opulent childhood
*she demonstrated outward kindness and charity in life and afterlife. The fact that her motivations were corrupted by jealousy should not diminish her benevolence to any great degree
*her relationship with Jason disproves snobbery
*she intentionally failed the Judge's test
CON correctly notes that PRO seems to be limiting the argument to the original afterlife system- under which nobody had earned the Good Place in 521 years because of the increasing complexity of human life- buying a tomato cost you points. Everybody deserved to be in the Bad Place according to the original system and nobody had to suffer the Bad Place according to the improved system. The system was not in error it just held humans to a superhuman standard under which either everybody deserved to be in the Bad Place or nobody did. PRO really needed to establish a specific ethical framework that supported the assertion that Tahani's treatment was unfair.
CON convincingly argues that truly ethical behavior must overcome disadvantages like Tahani's family and that benevolent behavior motivated by jealousy, attention-seeking and competitiveness is less ethical than benevolence motivated by generosity and compassion.
R2
PRO counters that both the accounting system and the Judge were flawed but PRO must establish what ethical framework is in play.
PRO's best argument is that Tahani often nurtures her friends.
PRO's argument that Tahani's talent for event organization demonstrates a concern for happiness at the community level is less convincing.
PRO dismisses CON's argument as predicated on the framework within the show. The accountancy system was uncallibrated for the complexity of modern life but it remains the only ethical framework by which Tahani has been judged. COB correctly suggests that the burden of providing some alternative preferable framework for judging is on PRO.
R3
PRO misses CON's point- conflating the burden for providing some preferable ethical framework with the burden of proof. These are different standards but related: how can PRO prove "DESERVED" if he does answer CON's question, "according to who?" The standard PRO must prove is "DESERVED" but deserved according to who or what benchmark.
R4
Mostly iterations on above themes.
CON might have provided the alternative framework for PRO but that might also have given PRO an opportunity to score more points within that framework (certainly Tahini does many good deeds during the show). Ultimately, the applicable standard was PRO's to provide and he while he consistently rejected the show's framework, he never gave us a replacement and never understood CON's reasonable request.
N.B.-
I wish more had been extrapolated from specific examples on both sides and I really wish CON had crafted some more specific indictments. After all, Tahani does bad things too. We establish in the first episode that her accent is FAKE! Even after improving herself to architect, she never gives up such affectations. Tearing down your sister's statue in the middle of a party in her honor is always jealous and wrong. Being friends with Kanye is always wrong. Remember that when they get to the Good Place and first smell "whatever makes you most happy," Tahani smells a curtain drawing closed between first class and economy. The thing that makes her *most happy in life* is her class/caste superiority, while Chidi is made most happy by the absolute truth.
ARGS to PRO for making an argument
CON failed to present any kind of argument
ARGs to CON for concession
CONDUCT to PRO for concession
concession by PRO
Important and timely subject, well argued with strong engagement on both sides. Good debate.
CON's most important mistake was failure to define terms and BoP. This VOTER is confident that given if CON had refined the field of play and defined a few essential terms, CON's argument would prove far more persuasive. Since Burden of Proof was not defined, this VOTER applies the default- INSTIGATOR bears to burden.
R1
CON: BLM ethno-centric/ethno-supremacist, divisive
focus on black people implies less worth , integration with non-black
*cites short term harms to community trust
PRO counters focus on black oppression need not imply supremacy or exclusion
*cites BLM mission statement (not a very persuasive source on arg)
BLM promotes false narratives
*cites Michael Brown w/ good evidence
*cites Trayvon Martin w/out evidence (what BLM false narratives?)
PRO counters with stats vs. anecdote. BLM getting some facts wrong re: some specific case does not prove false narrative more convincingly than USFG stats.
(best arg of debate, PRO wins this arg)
BLM distracts from bigger problems
*cites black murder rates
*coronavirus
*2.8 mil dead in 2018 (how does less distraction improve this stat?)
PRO concedes smaller issue but argues that racist govt. violence is part of larger continuum and that BLM is multi-issue movement.
(push, PRO's counter is weak but CON's appeal to worse problems (Fallacy of Relative Privation) is a classic non-persuader for this VOTER)
R2
CON doubles and triples down on BLM only cares about Black issues
*cites no evidence
self-*contradicts by arguing that it is "standard for people to value insiders above outsiders" If BLM is exhibiting pretty standard stuff than what is CON's complaint?
*CON's claim is so absolute (if you're not black then you're not part of BLM) that PRO's two examples of protesting Hispanic deaths effectively counter.
CON loses cred built in R1 here.
CON drops False Narrative "big picture" args.
PRO wisely concedes anecdotal falsehoods and expands big picture with local and Fed findings of racist conduct, justifying BLM's concerns in the big picture.
PRO wins false narrative arguments. Demonstrating that an organization persists in at least one false narrative does not justify non-support. Name some large org that does not collectively persist in at least one false narrative- religions, govts, fraternal orders, etc.
PRO effectively shows that BLM is more than just some falsehoods from Ferguson.
PRO effectively shuts down the "bigger problems" argument by opening several affirmative arguments documenting the impacts of racism on the black community and the positive national impacts inspired by BLM protests.
CON undermines his "bigger problems" argument further by bringing up the national response to George Floyd's death. Clearly, much of the nation agreed with BLM's concerns and priorities this summer.
PRO really pulled ahead in R2 and unfortunately CON forfeited R3- assuring that
ARGUMENTS go to PRO
PRO clearly had the edge in SOURCES but not sufficient to warrant PRO
CONDUCT to PRO for CON's forfeit
PRO concedes the least controversial assertion of the 21st century.
Not much of a contest. PRO never makes an affirmative argument of any kind. PRO lazily offers that some person on some other website somewhere once said something. PRO never gives a link to that argument or any kind of summary of that argument. Merely referencing somebody else's argument is not itself an argument and referencing without demonstrating any kind of affirmative interest in the nature or structure of that argument amounts to the rhetorical equivalent of no argument at all. All of PRO's efforts here are just critiquing CON's interpretation of the offsite argument but CON has no rhetorical or rational burden to disprove other people's arguments on other people's websites. PRO's thesis asserts that homosexuality is nonsense and in the very first line of argument PRO asserts that nowhere has he stated that homosexuality is nonsense. PRO irredeemably disproves his own thesis in the first sentence of his own late-in-coming argument. CON's light-hearted approach provided an attractive counter-point to PRO's grisly self-immolation.
ARGs to CON.
SOURCES to CON. PRO hinges his entire debate on somebody else' argument but never links to this argument or credit the authors. PRO's effort would amount to plagiarism if he weren't to lazy to bother with the cut & pasting.
CONDUCT to CON PRO's refusal to offer any argument but only complain about the ways CON fails to PRO's job for PRO amounts to argument in bad faith. Additionally, PRO forfeited R1 by failing to argue and failing to seek a waiver in debate terms. PRO failed to convince this VOTER that he was seriously interested in this topic or its arguments for or against.
This debate is not difficult to judge. PRO takes some piece of obviously false hyperbole and gives himself an enormous burden of proof which he never comes close to fulfilling. The standard of NOBLE, for example, is archaic and inconsistent. First PRO defines NOBLE as a hereditary class distinct from wealth but then uses American income brackets alone to establish a noble class in a nation constitutionally designed to reject nobility. I don't know any aristocracy that would accept any six figure income as solely qualifying.
Worse, PRO's definition of SINGLE includes all humans. All humans are or were single at some point in their lives. The set of all noble people (by any definition) and the set of all people who were SINGLE at some point is the same. The set of all canines includes no homo sapiens of any status or income. PRO's case was sufficiently flimsy that CON needed no more than to cite a few easy trusims to win this argument.
ARGs to CON
PRO's thesis is gigantic, untestable, unknowable. He assumes universal knowledge sharing would beget wisdom and solve problems without really explaining why.
CON does a nice job of demonstrating the impracticality of the proposal- capacity, exploitation of secrets, the dissemination of trauma, the incitement of conflicts. This voter is less persuaded by the arrogance and dullness of perfect knowledge arguments (after all there is plenty more of the universe to discover and be humbled by) but PRO never challenges these so let's push these two.
PRO counters capacity arguments with undefined magic, which CON correctly trashes as special pleading.
PRO counters exploitation and conflict with an interesting argument linking education to less crime. Unfortunately, CON has already discussed nuclear launch codes which takes us right to CON's test- if there's even one person who (even on some mentally ill impulse) could use that knowledge to end the world then the universality of PRO's program fails.
For this voter, trauma is the most persuasive argument although neither side gets down to whether two year olds are ready to experience the memories of holocaust survivors or relive the memories of the actresses in two girls, one cup. PRO argues that EXPERIENCE is somehow separate from INFORMATION but that is both absurd and moving the goalposts substantially.
Whether or not experience is emotional it is nevertheless information. PRO now wants to separate experience to segregate out trauma but his terms clearly stated experience as included in the share and in truth, I don't think separating learning from associated emotion is possible.
PRO never really why universal sharing automatically solves problems like world hunger. 1 in 8 Americans went hungry this past summer but that wasn't due to any lack of food or information. The principles deciding to escalate WW1 or Viet-Nam generally understood that they were making a terrible mistake but made that mistake anyway. Oppenheimer believed that the end of the world was one small probability outcome of the first nuclear test but he took that chance anyway. Trump understood that COVID was the worst epidemic in American's memory but deliberately exacerbated the spread in the hopes of improving his election chances. Information is not wisdom or good judgement, those characteristics require deep empathy, a quality that PRO wishes to exclude from his hypothetical.
Args to CON.