Total votes: 397
full forfeit
PRO's whole argument amounts to racist invective- no sourcing, no justification, just a string of unwarranted overgeneralizations and stereotypes. PRO was entirely unconvincing from first to last. PRO characterized the draft as a current hot topic but from this fairly ardent news consumer's perspective, the topic of a renewed draft amounted to an occasional note during a single new cycle. Certainly, nobody's still worried about the draft this week.
CON argued:
C1: Deja Vu: opposition to unwarranted warmongering may be interpreted as concern for the country's well-being and therefore patriotic.
C2: Love/Hate Heartbreak: opposition to national leadership/policy-making does not imply a lack of concern or patriotic love.
PRO's R2 response is entirely unengaged and chock a block with misinformation. PRO fails to document key arguments like "white people crashed the Selective Service website." There's no evidence of syllogistic reasoning here- just white people and immigrants (collectively, about 86% of US population) are hypocrites and/or suck. One could argue that any nation is defined by its people and any argument the rejects the worthiness of 86% of that nation is by definition unpatriotic.
CON wisely extends arguments as unrefuted.
PRO finally makes one poorly reasoned but cohesive argument:
Any & every draft strengthens a nation.
Therefore, opposition to any and every draft weakens a nation.
Therefore, opposition to any draft is unpatriotic.
Unfortunately for PRO, CON argued in R1 that one can opposed leadership and national policy but still love your country, just as one can oppose a sister's drug habit but love your sister, etc. PRO was already well pre-futed and failed to read CON's argument closely enough to recognize (or perhaps is merely intransigent in thought).
ARGUMENTS to CON.
PRO desperately needs sources: sources to document the draft debate, sources that documented the website crash, evidence that only whites and immigrants oppose the draft, crashed the website, etc (I'm fairly confident that folks from every demographic oppose or support the draft to some degree). PRO's unwillingness to define terms made PRO's case entirely unsustainable.
Therefore, sources to CON.
The DART Code of Conduct states:
"Slurs or invective against an entire class of people (such as racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic, transphobic, ageist, and ableist slurs, or slurs against religious, political, ethnic, or national groups) are prohibited when aimed against other users. Whether aimed against other users or not, hate speech is treated as aggravating factor in weighing moderation responses to other violations of the COC. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc., is not a legitimate excuse for hate speech."
PRO's entire argument represents false and unkind generalizations vs. whites and immigrants. In light of PRO's racist rhetoric, the VOTER awards
CONDUCT to CON.
full forfeit
PRO concedes so 1 point for conduct.
Full forfeit. Really interesting topic
Concession. Conduct for concession
Full for fit
I was about to complain about the laziness of this debate but then I noticed the 100c limit which changes the game somewhat.
We might note that PRO is more or less arguing in favor of a long-standing and uncontroversial principle
PRO's R1 was fine: familiarity offers superior information
CON's R1 reply, some parents are also drs was lame. CON also argues superior information.
PRO's R2 argues Drs may be too self-interested
CON's R2 argues parents less impartial. cites utilitarianism without explainable.
PRO's R3 repeats R1, R2
CON's R3 does same.
Args too vague and unsubstantiated to ascribe a winning arg to either side.
That 'ol triple forfeit'll fuck you up ev'ry time
https://youtu.be/XKMYs-9LW2w
This debate hinged on the definition of gender as social construct. If CON was going to win, CON really needed to get to those definitions first and separate social contstruct as an ordinary definiton for gender. Once PRO show that gender=social contstruct in any ordinary sense, PRO had little defense. CON single source did not particularly back CON's conclusion while PRO's serial definitions locked the case down.
RFD in Comments
RFD in Comments
concession
RFD in Comments
no arguments made or refuted. So lazy its like watching sponges fight.
34fit < 14fit
concession
[what one does at athletic center] - [popular cryptid nicknames] + [the # of horsemen preceding apocolypse]
Both of PRO's premises were fairly engagable- science is and ought to be taught separately from any specific field of scientific study, creationism is part of history but not the history of science particularly. CON outlines a few worthwhile retorts but never backs the arguments with reasoning sources.
Sources to PRO because CON really needed to bring in some sources and offered none.
Conduct for forfeit.
Full Forfeit
RFD in Comments
CON session
Arguments and sources strongly favored CON but triple forfeit wipes out the advantage. PRO wins by default
RFD in comments
RFD in Comments
RFD in comments
RFD in comments
Not a fan of debates about users (or potential users). Not a fan of debates about other web sites (even ones that most of us share in common). PRO offers two examples of terrible debate tactics, calls the user the "best person on here" (a slight against the DART generally, I suppose....also a terrible debate tactic) and concedes. Conduct to PRO for getting it over with.
PRO was pretty clear that his argument was entirely subjective, which makes resolution untestable, unprovable. PRO fails to define hardcore or even explain why his song met any standard by that name. CON defines and shows at least that PRO's idea of hardcore is pretty mild by many music conventions which grabs him the win. Conduct for single forfeit.
PRO begins with solid evidence for the notion he has offered to disprove and then promises to disprove the notion using the same equation.
But PRO uses a new equation (10X - X =/= X - 10X), inserting a negative result and proving zilcho. Likewise, he replaces the irrational value of his equation with an infinite number which behaves quite differently.
Either side arguing for the "existence" of one irrational or infinite number is oxymoronic when by definition such numbers can't be accurately represented much less exist. e. I don't think PRO is using correct or legit notation for infinite nines but when CON tries to de- legitimize an infinite number of nines multiplied by arguing the irrational number he is not persuasive.
Ultimately, PRO loses this argument because he promises a magic reversal but we can see the chosen card peeking out of his sleeve.
Truly contemptible conduct by CON here. PRO sets up a skeletal premise for the seeming purpose of racist invective. PRO then assumes CON is a member of the racial group based on debate acceptance and addresses CON as a target for mere hate speech. Full points to PRO for responding with love. User mairj23 should be advised that while racism is well-tolerated on this site, attacks on fellow members are not. If such conduct continues this debater would advocate a corrective boot to ass.
CON made one argument in R1- the trinity didn't come from CoNicea. OK. nobody said it did and non-sequitur to question of pagan origins. Truly terrible, lazy argument.
PRO took the high road and offered some Platonic, Roman, and Egyptian origins, correctly pointed out that some early Christian support for trinity does argue against pagan sources and points out that Nicea was, in fact, a milepost on the road to Trinitarian acceptance. Nice work.
CON comes back with unsupported declaration and bizarrely insisting that his topic lies beyond our capacity to understand- which suggests that CON has no hope of proving his argument since he admits to not understanding the subject.
ARGUMENTS to PRO
SOURCES to PRO. CON offered no sources in support of claim. Worse, PRO fronts one specific religious source and condemns CON's use of a specific religious source (one assumes because it is the wrong kind of religious source), ignoring that PRO, at least, pulled from multiple religious and secular sources.
CONDUCT to PRO.
CON set up 5 rules for the debate and then broke 3 of them in his tiny arguments.
1. Don't uses logical fallacy.
"There is no evidence that the trinity is pagan." =arg from ignorance
" it didn't came from the Council of Nicea" =straw man
"the trinity can be found in the Bible" =appeal to authority, false authority
God that is outside our space and time, comprehension = arg from incredultiy
arguing that the number 3 ... is an association fallacy =fallacy fallacy
I notice you're citing a Jw.org link =appeal to authority
3. Give your opponent evidence.
CON gave zero evidence relevant to topic.
4. Don't mock or call someone names.
CON's source called Jehovah's Witnesses a cult and then CON irrationally inferred PRO's participation in that org because CON cited a JW website.
CON's conduct was thoroughly hypocritical and anti-engagement.
PRO argues that he does not understand why his votes are illegitimate and does a fine job of illustrating that lack by insults, non-sequitur quotes of literary masters, threats, and finally pleading to be made to understood. Unfortunately for PRO, lack of understanding does not make a particularly compelling argument for site elitism. CON needed only to quote a few reasons for PRO's vote illegitimacy and stand back while PRO drowned himself in irrelevancy.
PRO claims to suffer from anti-socialist discrimination but his remedy is to put all of the means for vote production in the hands of an elite establishment. Demonstrating previously unseen capacities for irony, PRO efficiently establishes that most of his debates are about the subject of socialism and also establishes that PRO lacks even a fundamental understanding for this favorite topi. PRO argues himself from the table before CON can even sit down to eat.
RFD in Comments
RFD in Comments
RFD in Comments
RFD in Comments
RFD in Comments
RFD in Comments
RFD in comets
RFD in comments
rfdic
rfdic
RFD in comments
RFD in comments
RFD in comments