seldiora

It's obvious. Pro could've won if he said "white americans can be domestic terrorists", but obviously white americans aren't majorly domestic terrorists as laid out by con.

This comes down to the final round. Though pro remarks about helping others innate to babies, con points out that the closeness to help family more than stranger is not demonstrated, nor the grounding basis for what is right or what is wrong. “Good” is very difficult. Ironically, if the debate was “humans innately tend to a net benefit toward society”, I would give this to pro.

weird semantic debate. I buy that Pro's big idea that philosophical existence being poorly defined is true -- Con pointed out that even in court, the simplest definition would suffice. Pro gave no reasons why the philosophy is preferable to basic of definition.

concession

RFD in comments.

a tough one to judge, but it came down to Pro's lack of clear constructive for unique *benefits* of protection and instead attacking the flaws of resource extraction. Good debate.

I feel like pro narrowly loses. He tries to open up with lack of participation with electoral college which quickly disappears from his big argument, and he tacks on how it protects the minority in the US. The campaigning argument starts off well, but falls apart as Con points out that direct voting means that concentrations of population may defeat the spread of states' different opinions encouraging politicians to travel to different locations. The undermining of democracy is interesting, but Con points out there are a lot of problems with the idea. Pro depends a lot on California, and Con points out that that the voter fraud is troublesome with direct democracy. Con also notes that even though electoral college is somewhat flawed due to contradicting popular vote, the difference required makes pro impact much smaller. Pro makes interesting points about small states, but it's hard to tell exactly what we'll gain by getting rid of electoral college. Whiteflame implements his impact analysis pretty well in the debate and I generally feel I have more to grab onto than Pro.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1C7ZpaXXN3oTwKBFMoCTB-ZA3mVZWrbGqEEjJkS6U-Ak/edit

In essence, Pro partially defeats his argument by admitting that science is not enough to talk about God. As such, his scientific impact is largely destroyed by his own claim. Con shows that "heaven and earth" is simply too vague. Pro kept refusing to address potential contradictions in religious texts, and says it doesn't matter what "heaven and earth" is. But con’s attack is also weak as he uses the implication with definition that God can surpass the laws of science. I need to see the entire connection between the fact that God’s all powerful nature defeats science. There’s some uncertainty here, but it’s quite tricky to buy. As such, the vote is TIED.

I rethought the debate over and I realized Pro didn't really stress the impacts and numbers. Con noted millions gained education while Pro only focused on how US had worsened quality, and Asain had slightly worse pressure. Not sure how bad that is compared to going from zero to hero. So I think Con wins here.

as far as I can see, pro made no arguments to fulfill his burden of proof. Con proved in a philosophical, morality, finance and personal way that slavery is terrible and that it infringes upon persons' rights and freedoms by its very definition. Perhaps Pro meant a master-servant relation, as he is a foreigner and likely doesn't understand slavery, but he never clarified this. As such con wins in a landslide.

Sources to con because he was the only one to use sources, not to mention a vast amount of them.

Pro argues from a physics perspective, but entirely bypasses the point of the moral dilemma. I don't buy the idea that the five people could potentially stop the trolley; that destroys pro's own argument about convenience (as the train would entirely stop instead of merely taking a long way around). Pro fails to find a good grounding about consequentialism with regards to lives versus expedience -- why are 20 people's convenience worth more than 4 person's net lives saved? He fails to show the actual impact, and instead makes assumptions about the five people, stating that they may have been prepared for death, or deserve the death, both of which are non-unique to the five persons. Therefore Con wins the debate.

basically a full forfeit. Con did pretty well for the difficulty of his side; he tried noting a spectrum, but the x to y logic still led to binary overall.

Obviously, pro had failed to refute con's sources showing acceptance of homosexuality. There's simply too much research and evidence in favor that Con displays.

forfeited. f

forfeiteddd

Argument to con, because Pro just dropped all of con's arguments and admitted he could not prove that God's killing were equivalent to murder.
Feedback: Con's assertion may look impossible to beat, but there are many ways to go around it, especially the famous idea defeating morality from God: "does God dictate what is Good because it is good, or is it good, because God dictates it?" In addition, Con's argument comes from appeal to authority (despite God being the highest authority possible). Whether pain and suffering is deserved is definitely up to question.

Tied. Pro does push for the fact that 47% are irresponsible, but makes no remarks on those who are indeed responsible. The rest of the arguments are just repeated from round 1, where Con already showed Pro misinterpreted the information and that the contraceptives are 98% successful. As such, sources to con.

Mall makes a few half-decent points concerning justice and how killing all people would be horrible, but failed to show that it wouldn't work as a proposal. Sure, it's probably one of the worst ways to actually try to fix racism, but there is no another way to do it, as Pro argues. Mall could've stressed more on the idea that babies aren't racist so we should save them at the very least, though that questioning goes into the periphery at the end.

Forfeited.

Conduct to pro, for con demanding the best solution possible.

Even ignoring the description, however, Con made excellent questioning this time around. It was a little bit complicated but there was indeed a lot of doubt. It's difficult to say for certain that there is absolutely no solution that would not solve the problem. Mall pointed out that people who die to cancer "lose" the battle, and hence cannot be called improvement if everyone in the world died of cancer. Sir Anonymous did mighty fine and was very humorous, but I'm with mall here. Sir pointed out that racism will no longer exist since humans no longer exist, but the impacts here are pointed well out with Mall -- he infers our efforts matter a lot and we could potentially be undermining our progress since so many people have already died for us to live on and solve racism. Mall also points out that people who want racism to be solved are unlikely to want to die themselves if they can implement some sort of plan. So by a narrow margin I give arguments to Mall.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Coitgg76Y_Tl_V3KE76WdpxscdiqJuaWXMJUbs-D4JY/edit

Mall asks a few pretty challenging questions but he can't prove Oromagi or humans are dictionaries. Certainly, con admits they write up definitions, but individual change cannot definitively change definitions willy-nilly. Mall could've had a point here where he showed growth of language according to culture and people, but he didn't. So Con wins handily.

full forfeit

conduct for forfeit.

R1: I liked Pro slightly more
R2: I preferred pro
R3: I prefer con
R4: Con slightly better
R5: I liked con more

it's obvious. Pro confused white supremacy with heritage/culture.

con concedes 3rd world and fails to weigh against benefits. He should've stuck with a Kantian model, otherwise utilitarian wins by default.

FF and better rap

Logicae moves the goalpost from immoral to net benefit then forfeits the final round. Doesn’t really refute RM

Null vote due to personal bias. I completely feel like pro just missed the entire point of how com says expert thinks system and structure points exists. Smaller details are refuted but overall, it doesn’t seem convincing even with Undefeatable ‘s lackluster final round. Personal feedback, to pro try to actually read all of cons stuff it doesn’t feel like you grasped the essence. Con... don’t get angry, stay solid at the end. If you’re right then other voters should agree with you.

forfeited a

If this was I can I BB, Pro would definitely have won (with Chinese people unaware of what the terms truly mean). However Con displayed that ALM at its current situation stains the very nature of BLM which asserts that minorities are discriminated against and matter at the end. Pro showed that ALM is more inclusive, but did not connect the ideas together for full impact (i.e., what is formed from ALM? Because Bearman says BLM fights for the problems shown in society, while ALM is a generic coverage that doesn't point out where the problem is; you have to look for it). If it were me, I would have stressed how the unity of humanity as a whole is far more powerful than the unity of a minority, regardless of staining BLM.

Also pro, I don’t buy your context. If you could’ve proved the future being better (ex. my time travel debate context, where you could also prevent Indians Spanish and Chinese from being discriminated against) then I would’ve tossed you the vote. Sadly your argument falls apart because you didn’t notice that ALM supporters criticize BLM

It’s obvious. Mall made nearly zero impacts or benefits on the trial segments while con posted many flaws with limited power and radical change

forfeited cry

con dropped all of pro's arugments

there's really no actual debate here, but as the premise is near impossible to actually debate, I'll give pro the win here.

Conduct to Con for Pro forfeiting two rounds. Sources to pro because con barely had any trustworthy sources to back his claims. I will ignore the rules concerning more than one forfeit, since this can still be treated as a three round debate equivalent. Pro makes very good case for measuring well being and thinks about the potential future, also focusing on the right to bodily autonomy. Con, you must do better with stressing the idea of just how important it is to keep the fetus alive. I'm not convinced, because there is no impact or essential grounding.

Improvements: Con, I recommend you bite the bullet and argue that it is actually equivalent to "murder", as this is the strongest argument that the Con side can have in this debate. Pro, you did well, keep stressing the autonomy. I don't think the first argument has to be that wordy to go prove something so simple. Try to make it more succinct. The idea that human well being matters is a basic axiom. Leave it to Con to try to refute the simple idea.

what a weird kritik... anyways, RFD in comments

unfortunately, pro's first argument didn't seem like an argument at all, and pro's final argument was muddled and con convincingly shown how paradoxical it was.

obvious. Mall did not negate the accusations of being racist (supporting Hitler), or use any sources.

con notes that agnostic = atheist, and pro didn't refute that. Also, no sources.

concession

This comes down to whether I accept con's argument that cellphone is key to warfare and crime (as they outweigh any public health benefits that pro offers). However as pro makes the argument that PEOPLE harm PEOPLE, and that overall the cellphone is not intended or used to this effect, I believe con lost this debate.

concession

concession

concession

con asks pro for proof but does not negate it when faced with multiple sources and facts. As such Mall loses

concession

pro forfeited and failed to negate con's list of people who have converted.

pro wins this seemingly impossible debate by using a source that analyzes the exact meaning of the Hebrew connotation "intent of ‘FOR YOURSELVES’ IS SEXUAL OR MATRIMONIAL IS OBVIOUS" that con failed to tackle head on. As a result I have no choice but to vote pro.

FFFFFFFFFFFFFF