to be fair, NHES doesn't do much better (https://www.nhes.org/exotic-pet-trade/#:~:text=Sugar%20gliders%2C%20hedgehogs%2C%20pythons%20%E2%80%93,in%20captivity%20for%20retail%20sale.)
That’s kind of underhanded of you because FLO is one of the big arguments once personhood falls apart. FLO doesnt really work here unless you combine it with proportionality because otherwise you infer that even self defense is immoral. I will leave pro to tear down the rest.
also, I had more numbers from Pro (7% reduce GDP, hundreds of thousands dead from pollution, etc.) but like I said, all those are meaningless if you can't tell us how much we mitigate this number via environmental protection. Pro would have probably gained my vote if he gave me some clear examples of, suppose that environment protection countries have better economics overall, or less deaths overall. I know from personal research that the focus of "save the environment" can reduce the number of deaths, but blamonkey seems to focus more on the bad of extraction rather than the good of protection. That's why I felt weird how Pro had a lot of substance in his case, but not necessarily to vote for him. (Because status quo is likely the two are prioritized equally)
no problem. What's your personal thoughts on the topic? I realized Pro's "constructive" was slightly weird because it attacked con rather than supporting his side. Seemed powerful but I saw less connection to unique benefits of protection.
Both pro and con use powerful impact based arguments clashing each other. This vote is extremely difficult because both had very good statistics and studies boasting against each other. (except Botswana from Con, what's up with that?)
Firstly, let's talk about corruption. I think the end result of this point is just insignificance overall. Pro needed to show that most countries were already corrupt, so that the result of not solving the problem is indeed as Con said -- it expedites the issue and destroys the economy within. But pro did no such job. He displayed the connection, but at the end I'm 99% sure he didn't make the connection that Con's plan would destroy due to corruption, but rather due to other reason. He merely said that con doesn't solve the problem. Con also says that if we reduce the poverty, this will loop back to resolving this argument. So this point negates out in my opinion (leaning con).
Secondly, the actual impact on people's health. I buy that the pollution is a long term impact that Con has a hard time solving in the long run. Pro's examples of developing countries such as US and others show that the resource extraction would likely go on for quite some. Con's only counter is going back to economics and pointing out that Pro's case is difficult to make. I see no commentary from Pro on how we will actually implement his plan of environmental protection. Con makes some good arguments about foreign dumping, but this seems insignificant relatively speaking. So this argument is slightly leaning pro, but it is difficult to say for sure.
Thirdly, let's talk about economic impacts. Con spends a ton of time arguing about poverty being more important than environment to resolve. I buy this argument due to its hefty impact. Under usual circumstances, the people's health is a no brainer that needs no thinking to. Pro no doubt knew that under a usual framework, he would have to devote no time to explaining why we have to save lives under the easy pollution. Yet at the same time, the big poverty issue is managed under a strong framework shift by con, and gone unnoticed by pro. Con sufficiently explains that saving people from being poor also counters the health argument, if only in a subtle way.
Pro thinks of that economic protection will loop back to economic boost. Con's case is easier here with talking about the poverty is resolved. I'm losing grasp on the "why" near the end, but the evidence is definitely established. Pro gives interesting ideas about the Dutch diseases, and though con refutes this nicely, I raised eyebrows at why he only cherry picked Botswana. As Pro notes, this does not apply to a lot of countries. So the economics seem to also be muddled overall.
This debate was kind of weird overall. Pro's case was shaped mostly as an attack over resource extraction rather than telling us exactly what we would gain by protecting the environment. Do we avoid the pollution merely because the developing countries would prioritize the protection? Can we save these lives? Pro infers so, but makes no clear connection. Yes, in Con's case we know we will likely lose these lives, but it's hard to say if the alternative means that the people's health will improve. Pro's case would greatly be helped by showing how much we can actually reduce deaths, rather than posing Con as "he kills this many people". At the very best, we can only expect the non-corrupt developing countries to thrive under democracy with environmental protection, looping back to resolve poverty somehow. Con reminds pro multiple times that he is not actually solving any problem, and pro makes no remarks about implementation problems. I almost voted tie (or even Pro) because of the establishment of environmental link to killing the poor, however, Con shows there's bigger problems to worry about. As such, I give the vote to con by a slight margin.
Con continues that people will trust the gov more as a result of reduction of poverty (~35:30), as well as the fact that even developed countries aren't doing a lot for environment protection. He also states that bringing in the countries for environment does not address the problem of poverty either and that Pro's benefits are not unique (~37:00). He repeats that the system will fail because you can't build up the green energy, and fails to address the foreign dumping and only depending on agriculture (~38:00). He also counters that the opportunity to improve is better than nothing at all (~39:00).
Pro concludes that Con will still only be trapped in poverty because of the pollution (~44:00). He notes that Botswana was a cherry pick and that most developing nations would not be able to transition to this green energy proposed. He goes back to despotism and says the problem is still unsolved and the poverty will remain. The fundamental rights are not upheld. Not to mention the GDP drop with climate change re-mentioned.
Pro tells us that we must look at benefits and exact impact. (~2:00) Pro tell us that the oil industry creates corrupt government (in a way, near ~3:00), and establishes poor democracy scores according to the dev. countries (~4:00), which I buy that the democracy can produce less corruption and problems (but not necessarily economically). He points out the problems with pollution along with diseases (~5:30).
Con's case is that resource extraction will help quality of life in poverty reduction (~14:00). He tells us about the severity of problem, in that it cuts life expectancy (~15:00), with similar disease problems as Pro. He adds on war problems, and distribution issues (~16:00), so tells us that poverty should be solved first. He tells us that the resources will connect to the needed economic growth (~17:30). I buy this as well. He quickly tells us how international laws overcome the individual's ideals (~18:30). He speaks that the block of projects prevent the poverty, which would lead to environment solving itself. He also points out that con case furthers the environmental protection in the long term. (~20:00) He concludes that Pro fails to address the big problems and doubling down on alleviating rather than solving problems.
Pro begins by saying Con's poverty framework fails itself. (~26:30) He says that the oil export depresses job opportunities, and that the Dutch disease means that only strong currency will allow the trading to work -- as mining is automated (~28:00). The resource extraction will not have big effect on employment (I don't think the point Con was trying to make, but a good point nevertheless). Pro notes that Con dropped the democracy point and that autocratic governments are inherently anti-poverty (~29:30). Pro notes that deforestation problems are still unique and lasting (~30:30).
Con refutes by saying that Pro won't be able to prevent the corrupted governments (34:30). He brings up Botswana, which reinforced the good government.
I am 99% sure that utilitarianism/Deontology is better than the Bible... because Bible's foundation is basically just golden rule and following God's ideals
says right there 56% women are coerced into sex for the first time (https://www.wellandgood.com/verbal-coercion-first-time-having-sex/#:~:text=A%20study%20published%20Tuesday%20by,having%20sex%20the%20first%20time.)
pretty sure Pro is favored. I checked online and most people agree that in this resolution a top Pro debater will always win because Con simply doesn't have enough grounding to stand on
true. If Supadudz were to argue the same ideas, it would definitely help to throw in everything wrong about American revolution. Pro likely thought it was more important to stress outcomes and moral based arguments, only choosing misinformation as a final crux basis -- but I feel like this may be just as important as the other two in hindsight. If he spent less time explaining war vs revolution he could spend more time talking about Colonists' demands.
I'd say that it is not a completely new argument -- he always inferred people are bad deciders due to misinformation ("nowhere in the resolution does it say the oppression actually exists" -- R1). The only new argument was adding taxation without representation on top of framing the Britain king. I think it's better treated as context behind the "malicious king" framing rather than a standalone argument...
hmmm... *scratch head* I guess it comes down whether you accept that am. rev. is unjust ( framed England king and claimed oppression) and accurately represents a large proportion of vr's... up to whiteflame.
if you are right that intentions are all that matter then it wouldn't matter if the oppression was nonexistent, then people may revolt merely to display the idea that any oppression is unacceptable. I'll abstain cuz its a hard vote.
also... the problem with the assumption is that Und. stressed like three rounds in a row about falsified information that would make them unjust. If you mentioned even a little that this was uncommon and unlikely then I'd definitely be thinking you're clearly winning.
wow I just realized your first debate is also this, except the opposing side (https://www.debateart.com/debates/1033-violent-revolution-is-a-just-response-to-political-oppression). You've come very far XD
ahhh, that's a good point too. Because of lack of responsibility, the Pro VR argument falls just a little bit short of completely winning abortion. You could of course, do a "people are wise" kind of thing like you did and say "people will only abort when the oppression is so bad it is as if someone responsible was abusing them!"
... which brings in another moral dilemma, is self-defense justified when someone is doing something but they do not know they are doing it, nor are they controlling themselves? Even if similar to VR where citizens take the risk that the government is oppressive, it's not like the government is just stupidly oppressing them with no idea -- unlike the baby sleeping in the woman's body. Undefeatable's point about the American revolution being ridiculous with "Taxation without representation" is also difficult compared to abortion, as Abortion is only one single woman convinced she is correct, while the revolution has to be a consensus among a group of people to commit the violence, which inherently has a higher barrier to bypass the proportionality of danger.
you know, the comparison to intentions and the idea of self defense gives me deja vu with MisterChris's argument in favor for violent revolution (even in potentially non violently oppressive scenarios) -- https://www.debateart.com/debates/2637-resolved-violent-revolution-is-a-just-response-to-political-oppression. It's an interesting link between different ideas. I'm curious if Pro would successfully be able raise the same idea as supporting a VR as supporting an abortion. Just fruit for thought.
Nice conclusion. Undefeatable's world building seems cool to me, but this is definitely very close. I don't know who won this one. (Though, I think you missed out on his re-crystallization on how people can randomly determine "oppressive" based on their own definition)
I think the fundamental assumption that organ donation can refer to anything that is independent from human body, rather than what Organ donation markets assume are organs (face tissue, kidney, lung, heart...)
I was just reminded because your profile pic and your "about me" reminds me of Wylted. Mikal is also capable of arguing Con side, likes Ariana Grande and doesn't mind a controversial "About me" but he already is on Elminster account.
what do you think? Did Undefeatable fail, because he didn't put in what the organ donation/transplant market meant? Or is the premise vague enough that we should accept con's definition? I'm on the fence here.
are you getting revenge for your systemic racism debate? It seems to me pro used multiple different sites in conjunction to support the idea of what an "organ" is. Why do you accept that the blood and sperm can be the organ? That's confusing to me.
get rid of when mother's life is in danger (most pro-life's admit this is the sole exception) and I might play devil's advocate. Or you could ping Mr. Chris. Self-defense is near impossible to defeat.
right. I think Pro means, "In current trends, quality of education is not improving. Education is becoming costly." But the wording of the resolution can be sneaky semantics -- "while (during) quality is not improving, education is becoming costly with every passing day". Based on pro's torture debate, I heavily doubt he will resort to such semantics.
to be fair, NHES doesn't do much better (https://www.nhes.org/exotic-pet-trade/#:~:text=Sugar%20gliders%2C%20hedgehogs%2C%20pythons%20%E2%80%93,in%20captivity%20for%20retail%20sale.)
wow, that's an easy topic to lose if you're pro lol
That’s kind of underhanded of you because FLO is one of the big arguments once personhood falls apart. FLO doesnt really work here unless you combine it with proportionality because otherwise you infer that even self defense is immoral. I will leave pro to tear down the rest.
Blamonkey stats
Eloquence 100
Speech 100
Knowledge 100
Mall stats
Confusion 100
to be fair, Jarrett successfully argued for the Kalam Cosmetological argument, despite it also non existing
define "exist" and define "Santa Claus"
Machine, or AI? This debate looks like it was made for me. (Though think =\= understand)
also, I had more numbers from Pro (7% reduce GDP, hundreds of thousands dead from pollution, etc.) but like I said, all those are meaningless if you can't tell us how much we mitigate this number via environmental protection. Pro would have probably gained my vote if he gave me some clear examples of, suppose that environment protection countries have better economics overall, or less deaths overall. I know from personal research that the focus of "save the environment" can reduce the number of deaths, but blamonkey seems to focus more on the bad of extraction rather than the good of protection. That's why I felt weird how Pro had a lot of substance in his case, but not necessarily to vote for him. (Because status quo is likely the two are prioritized equally)
doesn't matter. Nobody ever votes sources on concessions.
again? do try to use simpler language if you're trying to inform Mall. He didn't seem to understand your complex constructive the last time.
no problem. What's your personal thoughts on the topic? I realized Pro's "constructive" was slightly weird because it attacked con rather than supporting his side. Seemed powerful but I saw less connection to unique benefits of protection.
DECISION
Both pro and con use powerful impact based arguments clashing each other. This vote is extremely difficult because both had very good statistics and studies boasting against each other. (except Botswana from Con, what's up with that?)
Firstly, let's talk about corruption. I think the end result of this point is just insignificance overall. Pro needed to show that most countries were already corrupt, so that the result of not solving the problem is indeed as Con said -- it expedites the issue and destroys the economy within. But pro did no such job. He displayed the connection, but at the end I'm 99% sure he didn't make the connection that Con's plan would destroy due to corruption, but rather due to other reason. He merely said that con doesn't solve the problem. Con also says that if we reduce the poverty, this will loop back to resolving this argument. So this point negates out in my opinion (leaning con).
Secondly, the actual impact on people's health. I buy that the pollution is a long term impact that Con has a hard time solving in the long run. Pro's examples of developing countries such as US and others show that the resource extraction would likely go on for quite some. Con's only counter is going back to economics and pointing out that Pro's case is difficult to make. I see no commentary from Pro on how we will actually implement his plan of environmental protection. Con makes some good arguments about foreign dumping, but this seems insignificant relatively speaking. So this argument is slightly leaning pro, but it is difficult to say for sure.
Thirdly, let's talk about economic impacts. Con spends a ton of time arguing about poverty being more important than environment to resolve. I buy this argument due to its hefty impact. Under usual circumstances, the people's health is a no brainer that needs no thinking to. Pro no doubt knew that under a usual framework, he would have to devote no time to explaining why we have to save lives under the easy pollution. Yet at the same time, the big poverty issue is managed under a strong framework shift by con, and gone unnoticed by pro. Con sufficiently explains that saving people from being poor also counters the health argument, if only in a subtle way.
Pro thinks of that economic protection will loop back to economic boost. Con's case is easier here with talking about the poverty is resolved. I'm losing grasp on the "why" near the end, but the evidence is definitely established. Pro gives interesting ideas about the Dutch diseases, and though con refutes this nicely, I raised eyebrows at why he only cherry picked Botswana. As Pro notes, this does not apply to a lot of countries. So the economics seem to also be muddled overall.
This debate was kind of weird overall. Pro's case was shaped mostly as an attack over resource extraction rather than telling us exactly what we would gain by protecting the environment. Do we avoid the pollution merely because the developing countries would prioritize the protection? Can we save these lives? Pro infers so, but makes no clear connection. Yes, in Con's case we know we will likely lose these lives, but it's hard to say if the alternative means that the people's health will improve. Pro's case would greatly be helped by showing how much we can actually reduce deaths, rather than posing Con as "he kills this many people". At the very best, we can only expect the non-corrupt developing countries to thrive under democracy with environmental protection, looping back to resolve poverty somehow. Con reminds pro multiple times that he is not actually solving any problem, and pro makes no remarks about implementation problems. I almost voted tie (or even Pro) because of the establishment of environmental link to killing the poor, however, Con shows there's bigger problems to worry about. As such, I give the vote to con by a slight margin.
Con continues that people will trust the gov more as a result of reduction of poverty (~35:30), as well as the fact that even developed countries aren't doing a lot for environment protection. He also states that bringing in the countries for environment does not address the problem of poverty either and that Pro's benefits are not unique (~37:00). He repeats that the system will fail because you can't build up the green energy, and fails to address the foreign dumping and only depending on agriculture (~38:00). He also counters that the opportunity to improve is better than nothing at all (~39:00).
Pro concludes that Con will still only be trapped in poverty because of the pollution (~44:00). He notes that Botswana was a cherry pick and that most developing nations would not be able to transition to this green energy proposed. He goes back to despotism and says the problem is still unsolved and the poverty will remain. The fundamental rights are not upheld. Not to mention the GDP drop with climate change re-mentioned.
Pro tells us that we must look at benefits and exact impact. (~2:00) Pro tell us that the oil industry creates corrupt government (in a way, near ~3:00), and establishes poor democracy scores according to the dev. countries (~4:00), which I buy that the democracy can produce less corruption and problems (but not necessarily economically). He points out the problems with pollution along with diseases (~5:30).
Con's case is that resource extraction will help quality of life in poverty reduction (~14:00). He tells us about the severity of problem, in that it cuts life expectancy (~15:00), with similar disease problems as Pro. He adds on war problems, and distribution issues (~16:00), so tells us that poverty should be solved first. He tells us that the resources will connect to the needed economic growth (~17:30). I buy this as well. He quickly tells us how international laws overcome the individual's ideals (~18:30). He speaks that the block of projects prevent the poverty, which would lead to environment solving itself. He also points out that con case furthers the environmental protection in the long term. (~20:00) He concludes that Pro fails to address the big problems and doubling down on alleviating rather than solving problems.
Pro begins by saying Con's poverty framework fails itself. (~26:30) He says that the oil export depresses job opportunities, and that the Dutch disease means that only strong currency will allow the trading to work -- as mining is automated (~28:00). The resource extraction will not have big effect on employment (I don't think the point Con was trying to make, but a good point nevertheless). Pro notes that Con dropped the democracy point and that autocratic governments are inherently anti-poverty (~29:30). Pro notes that deforestation problems are still unique and lasting (~30:30).
Con refutes by saying that Pro won't be able to prevent the corrupted governments (34:30). He brings up Botswana, which reinforced the good government.
To be updated
I am 99% sure that utilitarianism/Deontology is better than the Bible... because Bible's foundation is basically just golden rule and following God's ideals
ouch
says right there 56% women are coerced into sex for the first time (https://www.wellandgood.com/verbal-coercion-first-time-having-sex/#:~:text=A%20study%20published%20Tuesday%20by,having%20sex%20the%20first%20time.)
pretty sure Pro is favored. I checked online and most people agree that in this resolution a top Pro debater will always win because Con simply doesn't have enough grounding to stand on
seems pretty slanted towards pro
you didn't forget right? There's 5 days left on this.
stronk argument. Nicely done
so you're saying we're all bound to money? An interesting idea.
I actually don't know. David is very scary in religion, but this societal basis idea is more ambiguous.
thoughts?
I almost accepted but I realized you created a false dichotomy, so... no go for me
whoaaa hohooooo that's a controversial opinion
true. If Supadudz were to argue the same ideas, it would definitely help to throw in everything wrong about American revolution. Pro likely thought it was more important to stress outcomes and moral based arguments, only choosing misinformation as a final crux basis -- but I feel like this may be just as important as the other two in hindsight. If he spent less time explaining war vs revolution he could spend more time talking about Colonists' demands.
I'd say that it is not a completely new argument -- he always inferred people are bad deciders due to misinformation ("nowhere in the resolution does it say the oppression actually exists" -- R1). The only new argument was adding taxation without representation on top of framing the Britain king. I think it's better treated as context behind the "malicious king" framing rather than a standalone argument...
hmmm... *scratch head* I guess it comes down whether you accept that am. rev. is unjust ( framed England king and claimed oppression) and accurately represents a large proportion of vr's... up to whiteflame.
if you are right that intentions are all that matter then it wouldn't matter if the oppression was nonexistent, then people may revolt merely to display the idea that any oppression is unacceptable. I'll abstain cuz its a hard vote.
also... the problem with the assumption is that Und. stressed like three rounds in a row about falsified information that would make them unjust. If you mentioned even a little that this was uncommon and unlikely then I'd definitely be thinking you're clearly winning.
wow I just realized your first debate is also this, except the opposing side (https://www.debateart.com/debates/1033-violent-revolution-is-a-just-response-to-political-oppression). You've come very far XD
ahhh, that's a good point too. Because of lack of responsibility, the Pro VR argument falls just a little bit short of completely winning abortion. You could of course, do a "people are wise" kind of thing like you did and say "people will only abort when the oppression is so bad it is as if someone responsible was abusing them!"
... which brings in another moral dilemma, is self-defense justified when someone is doing something but they do not know they are doing it, nor are they controlling themselves? Even if similar to VR where citizens take the risk that the government is oppressive, it's not like the government is just stupidly oppressing them with no idea -- unlike the baby sleeping in the woman's body. Undefeatable's point about the American revolution being ridiculous with "Taxation without representation" is also difficult compared to abortion, as Abortion is only one single woman convinced she is correct, while the revolution has to be a consensus among a group of people to commit the violence, which inherently has a higher barrier to bypass the proportionality of danger.
you know, the comparison to intentions and the idea of self defense gives me deja vu with MisterChris's argument in favor for violent revolution (even in potentially non violently oppressive scenarios) -- https://www.debateart.com/debates/2637-resolved-violent-revolution-is-a-just-response-to-political-oppression. It's an interesting link between different ideas. I'm curious if Pro would successfully be able raise the same idea as supporting a VR as supporting an abortion. Just fruit for thought.
are the comments not loading? I can copy paste them at the beginning of the analysis.
sure. But it's also how I voted on Oromagi vs Fruit inspector.
proper link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1C7ZpaXXN3oTwKBFMoCTB-ZA3mVZWrbGqEEjJkS6U-Ak/edit?usp=sharing (should be updated now)
Nice conclusion. Undefeatable's world building seems cool to me, but this is definitely very close. I don't know who won this one. (Though, I think you missed out on his re-crystallization on how people can randomly determine "oppressive" based on their own definition)
I think the fundamental assumption that organ donation can refer to anything that is independent from human body, rather than what Organ donation markets assume are organs (face tissue, kidney, lung, heart...)
cool opening argument. I didn't know that 56% of sex was under coercion. That's pretty nice note.
I was just reminded because your profile pic and your "about me" reminds me of Wylted. Mikal is also capable of arguing Con side, likes Ariana Grande and doesn't mind a controversial "About me" but he already is on Elminster account.
what do you think? Did Undefeatable fail, because he didn't put in what the organ donation/transplant market meant? Or is the premise vague enough that we should accept con's definition? I'm on the fence here.
are you getting revenge for your systemic racism debate? It seems to me pro used multiple different sites in conjunction to support the idea of what an "organ" is. Why do you accept that the blood and sperm can be the organ? That's confusing to me.
you aren't a friend of Wylted, are you?
Mall looks like the bla monkey of the debate, while you seem like you are "blam on key"
get rid of when mother's life is in danger (most pro-life's admit this is the sole exception) and I might play devil's advocate. Or you could ping Mr. Chris. Self-defense is near impossible to defeat.
if the original premise was possible to argue against, why has no country done it except Iran?
thoughts?
right. I think Pro means, "In current trends, quality of education is not improving. Education is becoming costly." But the wording of the resolution can be sneaky semantics -- "while (during) quality is not improving, education is becoming costly with every passing day". Based on pro's torture debate, I heavily doubt he will resort to such semantics.
three days left.
thanks for the vote, but please refrain from speaking out against the source when the opponent has not stated anything about it.