Total votes: 397
RFD in comments
I must tell you, Crazy Bernie, Crazy Bernie doesn't have a CLUE. Alex and me go way back. I have been on his show, Infowars, many, many times and you know they tell me those were the BEST ratings Alex has ever seen! So now Alex is talking about this thing that's called fair capitalism. Lazy fair capitalism. And you know I know everything there is to know about capitalism. Ask Dow Jones! Ask Steve Minoochin! I am the smartest, like, capitalism guy those guys know and they do capitalism all the time, all the time. But, you know Alex is a friend of mine and he's very, very smart and you know people tell me Crazy Bernie worships the DEVIL. Which, ok, you know, how do I know what a guy's doing but that's socialism in a NUTSHELL. socialism is very, very bad maybe even like Hitler bad. Many people do not know that Hitler was a socialist, total socialist, that guy. So on the one side you have FAIR capitalism and the other side you have HITLER and people like CRAZY Bernie and I tell you what I want to do what is FAIR and tell Bernie, now Bernie, you're fired.
Hello darkness, my old friend
I've come to talk with you again
Because a vision softly creeping
Left its seeds while I was sleeping
And the vision that was planted in my brain
Still remains
Within the sound of silence
In restless dreams I walked alone
Narrow streets of cobblestone
'Neath the halo of a street lamp
I turned my collar to the cold and damp
When my eyes were stabbed by the flash of a neon light
That split the night
And touched the sound of silence
And in the naked light I saw
Ten thousand people, maybe more
People talking without speaking
People hearing without listening
People writing songs that voices never share
And no one dared
Disturb the sound of silence
"Fools, " said I, "You do not know
Silence, like a cancer, grows
Hear my words that I might teach you
Take my arms that I might reach you"
But my words, like silent raindrops fell
And echoed in the wells, of silence
And the people bowed and prayed
To the neon god they made
And the sign flashed out its warning
In the words that it was forming
And the sign said, "The words of the prophets are written on the subway walls
And tenement halls"
And whispered in the sounds of silence
Con concedes with a little humility, which I commend considering the waste of Pro’s excellent argument
Pro never offered an offense. Pro forfeited the first two rounds and then complained that con was misinterpreting thesis. Con gave solid evidence of Trumps racist past. Although I tend to agree with Pro that such a claim should be backed by recent evidence, Pro had 4 opportunities to argue for excluding old evidence before bringing it up in R3. Only one side in this debate made evidence based claims. Arguments to Con. Pro used no sources- sources to Con. Conduct for forfeit
Cons R1 made me laugh. Conduct to pro for forfeit
Pro never engaged Con’s excellent counterargument & threw in the towel on the 3rd round
lnformal debate. Entertaining read.
I have said before that I wish our voting system allowed for weighting style as style is what most often separates the proficient debates from the popular debates- this voter cares more about style than spelling or grammar.
Pro's R1 is all style- hyperbolic, hypercritical, & funny. As somebody who doesn't see much BS, I enjoyed the impression without really knowing how accurate the satire. The argument boils down to BS is often fallacious.
no evidence.
Con asks for evidence
R2- Pro gives 3 YouTube links which serve his case well enough, yes they demonstrate poor reasoning but very rational arguments seldom persuade in modern political punditry. The problem I have with Pro's approach is the use of anti-intellectual arguments - bluster, satire to condemn another's lack of intellectual integrity. Pro basically lists some logical fallacies and then invites us to listen for those fallacies on YouTube. I think three fallacious quotes from BS torn down to premise and conclusion, fallacy and correction would have been far more effective.
Pro really needed to offer a solid definition for intellectual- Wikipedia's lines up nicely with Pro's case. Con missed an opportunity to offer some definition that might have blown Pro's case up pretty effectively. In the absence of definitions, I have to prefer Pro's inferred definition over Con's.
Arguments to Pro
This voter brings insufficient knowledge to judge impartially. I've seen and enjoyed a few of these but they all rather run together in my mind. Neither side offered some criteria other than anime knowledge so this is all just dudes calling out show names. Can we have less debates like this in future?
Pro effectively concedes which was the right move. Stringing together bible verses seldom convinces the unconverted and Con's R1 was succinct, sufficient, and devastating.
Fluffier Lot
Why would a fish enter a drinking contest? That would be like a human entering a breathing contest. Terrible simile. I like the internals- bsh => fish, guzzles => jilzz There's a poem in there somewhere but Pro never struck me as the poetic sort.
What, I wonder, did Pro hope to accomplish?
nolo contendere
concession
Wow, R1 showed every sign of being a top notch debate- most lucid, organized long form counter I've seen from Con (and I've seen a few). But then Pro fucks off with a quadruple forfeit, depriving us all.
solid opener from Pro, deserved better than a full forfeit
This voter is not a big fan of the "yerfloor" opener: writing an assertion and then forcing your opponent to make the case on your thesis. Fortunately for Con, Pro never showed up.
Pro gave 4 solid advantages- each of which needed some documentation and none of which got any.
Fortunately for Pro, Con again works the subjectivity of the word "better" but he's on much flimsier ground this time because Pro offered an objective offense. Con's approach amounts to wordplay and non-engagement: everything is relative.
Pro correctly chastises Con's irrelevant and rather lazy defense. Args to Pro- Con clearly didn't want this one.
I would have given Con a point for forfeits but this debate is win/lose.
quintuple forfeit? Now we're just wasting time & energy.
original topic. I would like to see this re-framed as a genuine, current policy debate.
Both debaters offered minimal effort. Pro opened with irrelevant opinion and a sloppy comparison that offered no insight. Con correctly called the sloppiness but nearly lost me by arguing "better at crashing." I understand Con is K'ing a subjective thesis but Con is also profoundly undermining an already scanty case.
Ultimately, Pro loses arg because Pro failed to offer substantial offense which seems to have given Con an excuse to phone in the defense. Links to other people's arguments are seldom persuasive to this voter.
Conduct to Con for Pro's triple forfeit.
original topic. I'd prefer a less subjection comparison than just "better than" because just about everything is better than just about everything else in some way.
Pro's argument was too brief and far too unsubstantiated. Con's arguments were persuasive, succinct but sufficient. I was surprised that Con's argument was mostly sensory (as opposed to some performance or status argument) but that worked well in this context.
Args to Con
Only Con used sources and those were fun and effective
Conduct to Con for quadruple forfeit (really?)
Donkey holes are clearly not kosher, undermining the entirety of Pro’s claim.
Good & evil are human constructs, human perspectives. No syllabic mix is inherently right or wrong beyond human context. Con consistently argued Pro’s position and outright stated that his intention was only harmful in present context. In the game of Dungeons & Dragons one has to learn quickly that trolls regenerate at an astonishing rate- therefore burning trolls is the most effective solution.
Apoplectic anti-counterclimatic vote blob
Punking shite is what
Clean up on Aisle 14. Only Con offered arguments, grammar, or conduct worth mentioning. If Con would add a source next time I'll give him that point too.
full forfeit
Full forfeit
Forfeit for sho
I am a US citizen who considers plea bargaining to be legal blackmail- essentially, make our [prosecutors, judges] jobs easy or we will increase your punishment. Nevertheless, this voter finds that Pro’s case fails to persuade.
Pro’s opener is problematic.
*Waiting six months in jail for a trial is a major consequence. Few defendants who fail to make bail have a chance to retain present employment over that kind of time. This claim needed lots of stats but got none.
*31 innocents convicted of major crimes some time before 2009 is a clear and specific miscarriage of justice but that statistic by itself conveys no sense of the scope and scale of the problem. If Pro only offers 31 miscarriages of justice than perhaps the problem isn’t as bad as this reader assumed.
*When Pro does get down to stats, errors really harm the impact: 95% felony plea bargains seems true but not substantiated by any of Pro’s sources, 18% of exonerated pled guilty is also not substantiated by Pro’s sources but seems plausible (my research came up with 11%), 83% of DNA tests point to other perp (what? That can’t be true. What set of DNA tests are we talking about? Neither Pro or Pro’s sources elucidate.)
*as a voter who finds most drug sentences too onerous and nonproductive, stats that show that plea bargains reduce drug sentence is counter-persuasive.
*Pro’s defense (won’t clog courts) was minimal but fine.
Con’s opener was better.
Increased costs of public defense
Increased costs of incarceration
Clogged courts
I consider the clogged courts arguments a wash- Alaska vs. El Paso, Pro depends on Drug decriminalization which remains a fairly wild variable, Con depends on a status quo response to clogged system which seems unlikely.
This voter considers the harm of jailing innocent far more consequential than the harm of increased justice system costs. However, we have to weigh these consequences with a strong sense of scale- is a handful of unjust imprisonments worth substantially fewer costs? Pro really needed to give this voter a sense of the scale of unjust imprisonments to a degree sufficient to outweigh the costs of public defense and increased incarceration that were well established by Con and barely contested by Pro.
Arguments to Con.
All other points equal for what amounts to a grown-up contest reflective of actual policy decision-making. Nice work.
Nothingburger Royale (w/ cheese)
Pro concedes
Pro concedes
FUll fOrFeIt
Pro concedes R5
https://imgflip.com/i/1qajm5
Let's begin by admiring the chutzpah of any newcomer who starts his DART career by challenging the status quo.
Well done.
Pro's topic is original, modest, and straightforward.
Resolution: Crowd-sourced voting moderation features scale better than manual administrative voting moderation techniques.
Problem:
site growth = increased vote mod labor
heterogeneous site use = unpredictable labor requirements
Plan: crowd-sourced vote mod offers:
1. vote rating
2. auto-deletes based on vote rating
3. abuse detection based on vote rating
4. bias detection based on vote rating
The debate's set-up narrowly restricts Con's options in reply:
"Con will be forced to argue using manual, human-labor solutions alone, as agreed."
"Each idea is to be judged on its ability to handle increased traffic with regard to vote moderation capabilities."
Con's opener is well-opinionated and informative but Con makes a complete hash of the terms of this debate.
1. Con counters Pro plan with 3 alternative crowd-sources techniques in violation of the agreed upon terms of debate.
This voter disqualifies all 3 arguments.
2. Con suggests that manual moderation is an extension of crowd sourcing. Con's whole argument is in the balance now as Con offers, "I don't have a source for this as the Wikipedia [is] wrong but I am guaranteeing you."
Unfortunately for Con, Pro defined "crown-sourced" specifically excluding feedback from moderators.
3. Con links to optional songs, which this voter will call a misreading of the tone & temperament of Pro's agument.
4. Run-on sentences are a real problem for Con's readability. Here's one example:
"The users of the website are the crowd-source towards the Mods or at the very least if they dislike the Moderation and it's a dictatorship on-site they still crowd-source the website via off-site rankings, comments on comparison sites but even these comparison sites use their own manual (well, automated but undemocratic) means of comparing and sometimes have no comments section at all and calculate popularity based on frequency of site-use in any publicly available manner to measure it."
5. Con tells readers how good his K is without actually showing us his K (ignoring agreed upon rules is no K). Con tells us about websites "that may not want me naming them." All that this hoodoo amounts to is deeply counter-persuasive.
In R2, Pro fails to call Con on the illegitimacy of his arguments except to say "They haven't reinforced their position or made clear to me why manual administration is superior with regard to scale." Well, me neither Pro so why waste a whole round bolstering Con's disqualified crowd-sourcing plans? Pro is the crowd-sourcing guy, Con's supposed to be defending present manual moderation, why not make Con do that?
Con eventually gets around to some allowable arguments in R2
1 Popularity is no substitute for human analysis.
2. Humans must remain the ultimate arbitrators anyway
3. Increased complexity
Pro does a nice job of slapping these three down:
1. Crowd sourcing improves the culture of human analysis rather than substituting.
2. Human's remain arbitrators but with reduced workload.
3. The required software modifications are commonplace and simple.
Pro concludes: I'll point out that Con hasn't made a single argument defending their position - they've chosen only to attack mine. Why is manual administration the way to go?
Con was clearly tasked with defending manual moderation and gave little effort in this regard. Pro should have shut down Con's excursions hard and fast. Pro may lose some voters to the legitimacy Pro lent to Con's argument through engagement, but not this voter. Arguments to Pro. Conduct to Con for Pro's single forfeiture. Pro used NO SOURCES, which is a terrible look when presenting a real-world plan to actual stakeholders. Con's sources were weak and irrelevant so no point issued there. I considered grammar points for run-on sentences but decided run-ons alone probably don't amount to an unreadable position.
Pro presented an original, site-specific benefit relevant to all DART users. This voter hopes to see more content from the instigator and would like to see this specific topic offered again. Perhaps one of the Mods would be willing to take this on.
Pro offered a few traditional arguments with minimum effort and absolutely zero evidence to support some big claims. Con gave 4 solid supports on offense (hunting, protection, reduced rape and murder) and one well reasoned counter on defense (reduced gun violence). Combined with fair sourcing, Con's case dominates. Conduct to Con for Pro's double forfeit and tepid effort.
Entirely my taste and I bring little authority to the subject.
Everytime we touch 3 < Superman 4
Black & White 5 < Red Forest 7
More Than You Know 5 > No More 2
Lets Go 7 > Crash 3
Jammu 4 < Blue Light 7
24 > 23
Well, if you are going to claim one person I've never heard of is more famous than some other person I've never heard of, I 'm going to need some statistics, obviously. I have no idea how relatively persuasive Con's statistics should be weighed but Con did have some numbers, links, and a passionate response. Arguments to Con, another point for forfeits.
Pro offered 4 assertions without evidence, Con offered one decent reply but conceded all of Pro's points, followed by double forfeit.
FF-
https://youtu.be/YK-cvcw3ngM
Winner of the least opinion ever offered in a DART debate.
Full forfeit but extra credit to Con for making full effort, solid args & sources in the opener which merited fulsome response.
Pro failed to make a falsifiable statement. Con correctly points out that any direct counter risked violation of DART RoC. Mazel tov to Pro. Arguments to Con. Conduct to Con cuz Pro forfeits first.
Conduct to Pro for Con's full forfeit. Bonus points for mentioning Denver.